The Labour Court has delivered a scathing judgment upholding the dismissal of a Northern Cape correctional officer who sexually harassed a female colleague, while simultaneously rebuking the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) for its “ineptitude” in handling the sensitive case.
The court dismissed an application by Mr S. Louw to review and set aside an arbitration award that confirmed his dismissal. Louw, a Grade 2 Correctional Officer with 14 years of unblemished service at the De Aar Correctional Centre, was fired in March 2022 following a harrowing incident involving a fellow officer.
The court heard that on the night of 15 February 2021, Louw was instructed to drive the complainant home after her shift ended at 23:00. Instead of taking her directly home, Louw deviated from the route, and drove to a secluded, dark gravel road behind a local high school. When the complainant questioned him, Louw bluntly stated his intention to have sexual intercourse with her.
Despite her vehement protests, Louw attempted to remove items from her lap, tried to touch her private parts, and attempted to pull her across the car seats to forcefully kiss her. He even demanded she step out of the vehicle so he could “hold and squeeze” her. The complainant resisted throughout the terrifying ordeal until Louw finally relented and drove her home. The trauma of the event led to the complainant requiring psychological treatment and a two-week hospital stay.
Following the incident, an informal meeting was held where Louw apologised. The complainant initially accepted the apology out of pity for his family. However, after learning that Louw was displeased when she asked another colleague for a lift the following day, she realised his remorse was not genuine and pursued a formal grievance.
At the General Public Service Sectoral Bargaining Council (GPSSBC), and subsequently at the Labour Court, Louw mounted a defence of “double jeopardy.” He argued that his initial apology and its acceptance constituted a resolution of the matter, and that a formal disciplinary process was therefore unjust. He further contended that his long service record and initial clean disciplinary history warranted corrective counselling rather than dismissal.
The court thoroughly rejected these arguments. It noted that the informal meeting was not a disciplinary hearing and stressed that an amicable resolution between employees does not prevent an employer from taking necessary disciplinary action for serious misconduct.
While upholding the dismissal, the court did not spare the DCS from criticism. It condemned the department for taking a year to finalise the disciplinary process and for uplifting Louw’s suspension during that time. The court found it “perplexing” that the DCS permitted Louw to continue performing his duties alongside other female employees as if nothing had happened. “The DCS miserably failed the complainant,” Judge Tlhotlhalemaje stated, though he noted that the department’s ineptitude did not mean Louw should “get a free pass.”
Written by Theo Tembo
Read more from The Legal Desk:
The Legal Desk 
Leave a comment