Mbabane– A First National Bank (FNB) Eswatini employee facing a disciplinary hearing over an alleged act of dishonesty has approached the Industrial Court seeking an urgent order to stop the proceedings.
Gcinekile Shongwe, a Business Development Officer stationed at WesBank, Ezulwini, argues that the disciplinary proceedings were instituted outside the 30-day period prescribed by the bank’s Disciplinary Code and Procedure.
Shongwe, represented by the Swaziland Union of Financial Institutions and Allied Workers (SUFIAW), has also asked the court to review and set aside a ruling delivered by the chairperson of her disciplinary hearing, Phiwokwakhe Dlamini, on July 14, 2026.
According to the court papers, the disciplinary proceedings arose from an alleged act of dishonesty linked to a customer complaint.
The alleged misconduct is said to have occurred on April 28, 2026, while the customer complaint was allegedly lodged with the bank on May 4, 2026.
However, Shongwe claims that FNB only issued the disciplinary charges on June 9, 2026, which was outside the 30-day period provided for under Article 1.4.8 of the Disciplinary Code and Procedure concluded between FNB Eswatini and SUFIAW.
The matter was filed urgently at the Industrial Court in Mbabane, with the applicants seeking an order interdicting the continuation of the disciplinary hearing pending the final determination of the application.
According to the court papers, Shongwe was served with a notice of disciplinary enquiry on June 9, 2026, requiring her to attend a hearing scheduled for June 15, 2026.
The hearing was later postponed to June 25, 2026, when Shongwe and her union representatives raised preliminary objections, including the issue of the alleged time bar.
The disciplinary code provides that disciplinary action should be taken and finalised as soon as possible after the alleged misconduct comes to management’s attention and, in any event, within 30 calendar days.
The code, however, allows for the period not to apply where the delay is attributed to technical and operational processes and management produces evidence to that effect.
Shongwe argues that the exception was not applicable in her case and that FNB failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify the delay in instituting the disciplinary proceedings.
She further alleges that the disciplinary hearing chairperson accepted the bank’s assertions that the matter involved serious and complex allegations and required investigations without sufficient evidence being presented to justify the delay.
The employee claims that the complaint which led to the disciplinary charges was lodged by a customer on May 4, 2026, and that this was when management became aware of the alleged misconduct.
She argues that the 30-day period had therefore expired by June 5, 2026, four days before the disciplinary charges were issued.
Shongwe is also challenging a decision relating to the evidence to be presented during the disciplinary hearing.
She wants the authors of witness statements to be called to give oral evidence so that they can be cross-examined.
The employee claims that FNB intended to rely on an investigation report and written statements, including a complaint made by a customer, without calling the authors of the statements to testify.
She argues that this would affect her ability to challenge the evidence against her, relying on Article 1.4.13 of the disciplinary code, which provides for an employee to rebut allegations, present their version and cross-examine the bank’s witnesses.
The applicants have asked the court to direct FNB to dispatch a transcribed record of the disciplinary hearing, interdict the continuation of the proceedings and review and set aside the July 14 ruling.
They further seek an order declaring the disciplinary proceedings time-barred and setting them aside.
Alternatively, should the court find that the proceedings are not time-barred, Shongwe wants the ruling refusing the calling of the authors of witness statements to be reviewed and set aside.
The applicants argue that the matter is urgent because the disciplinary hearing could continue and be concluded before the application is heard through the ordinary court process, potentially rendering the case academic.
They also state that they did not delay in approaching the court, saying the preliminary objections were raised on June 25, 2026, but the written ruling was only served on July 14, 2026.
The application was prepared after Shongwe and SUFIAW approached their attorney on July 15, 2026.
The applicants further argue that the matter cannot be adequately dealt with through the Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration Commission (CMAC), claiming that the Commission does not have the power to declare disciplinary proceedings time-barred, interdict their continuation or review the ruling of a disciplinary hearing chairperson.
Discussion about this post