Consistency in the application of workplace discipline is crucial.

Employers are troubled at the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) and bargaining councils daily because they treat staff differently when taking disciplinary measures.

It's a principle that, at face value, seems so simple to comply with, yet it trips up employers time and again. "Consistency" relates to the requirement that like offences should be treated alike.

Though is important to be consistent, it should not be confused with being rigid.

Consistency is essentially assessed in three ways:

An employer may not institute discipline for an act that has been overlooked in the past.

There is, however, nothing wrong with an employer becoming stricter with regard to certain issues, as long as employees are properly informed of the company's intentions in this regard.

All employees guilty of a breach in company rules should be charged; that is, discipline should not be instituted selectively against employees.

All employees charged should be disciplined in the same way. Generally speaking, if two employees are guilty of the same offence they should receive the same sanction.

Cases of this nature frequently come before the CCMA, bargaining councils and the labour courts.

In the relatively recent (June 2009) Labour Court matter of Nel v Transnet Bargaining Council and others (JR2629/07), the applicant (a senior manager) had been dismissed for failing to disclose that a trip he had made to a golf estate had been paid for in full by a customer of his employer.

The applicant's case was, in short, that his employer had not acted consistently, in that another manager, to whom he reported, who had also attended the event, had been given a warning and not been dismissed.

The court acknowledged that while the consistent application of discipline is important (and "the hallmark of progressive labour relations"), there will be times when an "employer may be justified in differentiating between employees who have committed similar offences".

Justification for doing so could be based on length of service, the gravity of the misconduct and seniority.

Put differently, disciplinary penalties may appear to be inconsistent at face value, but in fact justifiably motivated by different mitigating and aggravating factors existing in relation to two employees found guilty of committing the same act of misconduct.

It follows, with good reason, that different disciplinary sanctions will be imposed.

For instance, two employees may commit the same "written warning" type of offence.

One is issued with a written warning, while the other is dismissed because he has a pre-existing and currently valid final written warning for the same offence.

That is not to say principles of consistency should not remain front of mind.

They most certainly must, with emphasis being placed on the consistency of the application of fair principles, rather than a focus on the imposition of universally common sanctions.

Book for a Workplace Discipline workshop on March 2. Call 011 476 1620 or e-mail info@ tonyhealy.co.za