The Deception of Polygraph Testing-As a Test for Deception

Industrial Law Journal

Polygraph testing is a common tool utilised by employers to investigate suspected misconduct and maintain discipline in the workplace. It delivers definitive answers one way or another on whether a suspected employee is guilty. However, it does not do so accurately or reliably. Experts have estimated that about half of the time, the polygraph returns a false negative, which often leads to disciplinary action, and even dismissal. For this reason, the Labour Court and Labour Appeal Court have warned against the admission of polygraph evidence, and the weight attributed to it. Despite this, commissioners (and occasionally judges) afford polygraph evidence far greater status than deserved or permitted. Its evidential yield is so negligible, and its results so unreliable, that its admission as evidence cannot be justified.

Source: Industrial Law Journal, Volume 44 Issue 4, 2023, p. 2139 – 2150

(Subscription required)

Share:

More Posts

High Court reaffirms the polluter pays principle

The polluter pays principle is a foundational concept of modern environmental law. At its core, it provides that those responsible for environmental harm must bear the costs of preventing, managing, and remedying that harm. The principle ensures that the financial burden of environmental degradation is not shifted to the public or the State but remains with the party whose activities caused the damage. In South Africa, this principle is given effect by section 2(4)(p) of the National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998 (“NEMA”), which provides that the costs of remedying, and preventing future pollution, environmental degradation and adverse health effects must be paid by those responsible for the harm. The principle seeks to ensure that the financial burden of environmental damage is not shifted onto the public or the State.

Breach of a Restraint Order: When it Is Not Contempt of Court

The Labour Court, in Rotunda Proprietary Limited v Sam, considered whether a former employee who breached a restraint of trade that had been made an order of court was guilty of contempt of court in circumstances where the underlying restraint of trade had, by effluxion of time, expired.

Cutting out the middle step in facilitated mass retrenchments disputes 

On 29 May 2026, the Constitutional Court in NUMSA and Others v Industrial Oleo Chemical Products [2026] ZACC [22] clarified that, in a facilitated largescale retrenchment, it is not necessary to first refer a dispute to conciliation before approaching the Labour Court to challenge the substantive fairness of the dismissal. The judgment brings certainty in relation to section 189A(7) of the Labour Relations Act (“LRA”), following a line of conflicting judgments in the Labour and Labour Appeal Courts.

Contact Us

How can we help?

Please fill in your details below and we will be in touch.