This discussion should revolve around Schedule 8 - Code of good practice in the LRA 1995 as amended.
While conduct is recognised as one of the reasons for dismissal, there are some conditions attached.
Firstly, there is principle of procedural and substantive fairness.
In other words, was a proper procedure followed, and did the punishment fit the crime, according to past precedent and the company's policies.
The act calls for dismissal to be the final straw, and advocates progressive discipline. For example, if you get a reprimand for late coming, and then one for not closing the door - well they are not really linked, and I have lost a CCMA case for this reason in the past.
If you are reprimanded for a misconduct, the act says the employer must determine if
(i) the rule was a valid or reasonable rule or standard;
(ii) the employee was aware, or could reasonably be expected to have been aware, of the rule or standard;
(iii) the rule or standard has been consistently applied by the employer; and
(iv) dismissal was an appropriate sanction for the contravention of the rule or standard.
Failure to have enough evidence of these points, could render the dismissal unfair.
If, on the other hand they want to make a case for poor work performance then the employer needs to -
determine whether or not the employee failed to meet a performance standard;
and if the employee did not meet a required performance standard whether or not-
(i) the employee was aware, or could reasonably be expected to have been aware, of the required performance standard;
(ii) the employee was given a fair opportunity to meet the required performance standard; and
(iii) dismissal was an appropriate sanction for not meeting the required performance standard.
Again, if such a process is not followed, the whole shebang becomes procedurally unfair, and an arguement for constructive dismissal can be made.
Signing for papers is not a big issue - as long as the employer can prove you saw and / or got a copy, thats good enough.
