What is dereliction of duty and gross negligence at work?

A cash-up does not balance. A gate is left unlocked and stock disappears. A nurse misses a patient's medication. The charge sheet that follows often says "dereliction of duty" or "gross negligence", sometimes both, and the employee is left wondering whether one mistake can really cost them their job. This guide explains what each term means, how they differ from poor performance, what the employer must prove, when dismissal for a first offence can be fair under the Code of Good Practice: Dismissal, 2025, and what to do if you are charged.

This guide is part of our Discipline at work: warnings, hearings and dismissal, which links every guide on the topic.

What dereliction of duty means

Dereliction of duty is a label used in many disciplinary codes, especially in the public service, security, health care and transport. It is not defined in the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995. In ordinary use it means failing to perform duties that you were required and able to perform: leaving a post unattended, not doing required checks, ignoring a procedure, or simply not doing the work.

It can be deliberate, which overlaps with insubordination, or careless, which overlaps with negligence. Because the term is so broad, the charge sheet should say exactly what duty you failed to perform, when, and how you knew it was your duty. A charge of "dereliction of duty" without those particulars is hard to answer, and you are entitled to ask for them.

Negligence and gross negligence

Negligence is a failure to take the care that a reasonable employee in your position would take. The standard is not perfection. It is measured against what a reasonable person with your training, experience and job would have done in the same workplace. A trainee is not held to the standard of a supervisor, and a pilot is held to a higher standard than a packer.

Gross negligence is negligence of an extreme degree. South African courts have described it as an extreme departure from the standard of a reasonable person, showing either a conscious taking of an obvious risk with complete indifference to the consequences, or a total failure to take care. The Supreme Court of Appeal's discussion in the MV Stella Tingas case, a shipping matter reported in 2003, is often referred to on this point.

In practice, arbitrators look at:

• how obvious the risk was
• how easy it would have been to avoid
• whether you knew the rule or procedure and ignored it
• how much harm was caused, or could have been caused
• how important the duty was to your job

Leaving a vault open overnight is likely to be gross negligence for a bank teller. Making an arithmetic error on a busy shift is ordinary negligence.

Misconduct, not poor performance

This distinction decides many cases. Misconduct is a failure to meet a standard you could have met. Poor performance is a failure to meet a standard because you cannot, whether through lack of skill, training or ability. Poor performance is a form of incapacity.

The 2025 Code treats them very differently. Item 19 says that after probation an employee should not be dismissed for unsatisfactory performance unless the employer has given appropriate evaluation, instruction, training, guidance or counselling, and the employee continues to perform unsatisfactorily after a reasonable period to improve. Item 20 adds that the standard must have been known and reasonably achievable.

Negligence charges are sometimes used to dismiss an employee who is struggling with the work, without going through that process. If you were never trained in the procedure you are accused of breaking, or the target was unrealistic, the case may really be about capacity. Our guide on incapacity versus misconduct explains why the wrong track often makes a dismissal unfair.

A rough test: a single lapse in something you normally do well points to negligence; a pattern of errors in something you have never mastered points to performance.

What the employer must prove

Section 192 of the Labour Relations Act puts the onus on the employer to prove that a dismissal was fair, once the employee shows there was a dismissal. Item 5 of the 2025 Code says the same. For a negligence charge, the employer must show on a balance of probabilities:

• that there was a duty or rule, and that you knew or should have known of it
• that you breached it by an act or omission
• that the breach was negligent, measured against a reasonable employee in your position
• if the charge is gross negligence, that the departure was extreme
• that dismissal was an appropriate sanction

If the employer proves only ordinary negligence, a dismissal for "gross negligence" is likely to be found too harsh. Item 8 of the Code lists what an arbitrator considers, including whether the rule was valid and reasonable, whether you were aware of it, how important it was, the actual or potential harm, and whether the rule has been applied consistently.

When dismissal for a first offence is fair

The general approach under item 6 of the 2025 Code is corrective, through graduated measures such as warnings. But item 7 says serious misconduct may be a single instance if it makes continuing the employment relationship intolerable. Item 9 lists factors, including the nature and requirements of the job, the seriousness of the misconduct and its effect on the business, whether progressive discipline might prevent a repeat, any acknowledgement of wrongdoing, and the employee's length of service, disciplinary record and circumstances.

Dismissal for a first act of negligence tends to be upheld where:

• the negligence was gross, not ordinary
• the job is safety-critical or involves trust over money, people or dangerous equipment
• the harm was serious, or could easily have been catastrophic
• the employee knew the rule and simply ignored it

It tends to be overturned where the employee had a long clean record, the lapse was understandable on the day, others had done the same without being dismissed, or a warning would have been enough to prevent a repeat. Our guide on verbal, written and final warnings explains the lesser sanctions.

Paying for the loss

Negligence cases often come with a demand that the employee pay for the damage. Discipline and recovery of the loss are separate questions, and an employer may not simply take the money from your salary.

Section 34 of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act 75 of 1997 allows a deduction for loss or damage only where you agree in writing to the specific debt, the loss happened in the course of your work and was due to your fault, the employer followed a fair procedure and gave you a reasonable chance to show why the deduction should not be made, the amount does not exceed the actual loss, and total deductions do not exceed a quarter of your remuneration in money. Our guide on what can be deducted from your salary explains each requirement.

Be careful about signing an acknowledgement of debt in the middle of a disciplinary process. It may be used as an admission of fault at the hearing. If the employer wants to recover a large loss without your consent, it must sue you in court and prove its claim, which is slow and expensive, and many employers do not pursue it.

If you are charged

Ask for particulars of the duty you allegedly failed, the dates, and the harm said to have resulted. Ask for the documents: the procedure or policy, your training records, the job description, logs, CCTV and any incident report.

Then build your answer. Was there a clear rule, and were you trained in it? Were you given the tools, staff and time to comply? Did someone else share responsibility? Was the loss caused by your lapse, or by something else? Even if you made a mistake, was it ordinary negligence rather than gross? And at mitigation, put up your service, record, remorse and circumstances, because item 11 of the 2025 Code gives you the right to make representations on the sanction as well as the allegation. Our guide on how to prepare for a disciplinary hearing sets out each step.

Worked example

This example is illustrative. Johan is a security officer at a Durban warehouse with six years' service and a clean record. On a night shift he leaves his post at the main gate for 50 minutes to buy food at a garage across the road, without telling the control room. During that time a truck is loaded with stock worth R180 000 and driven out. He is charged with gross negligence and dereliction of duty, and dismissed.

Johan's job exists to guard the gate. He knew the rule against leaving his post, the risk was obvious, and the harm was serious. An arbitrator is likely to find gross negligence and to uphold the dismissal, even on a first offence, unless the employer has tolerated similar absences by other officers.

Change the facts: Johan leaves the gate for ten minutes to use the toilet because no relief officer has been rostered for nine hours, and he radios the control room before he goes. The lapse is understandable, the employer contributed to it, and he took reasonable steps. At most this is minor misconduct calling for a warning, and a dismissal would very likely be unfair.

What to do

1. Read the charge carefully and ask in writing for particulars and documents.
2. Write down your version of the incident while you remember it, with times and names.
3. Check whether you were trained in the rule and given what you needed to comply.
4. Ask whether the case is really about performance rather than conduct.
5. Prepare mitigation even if you deny the charge.
6. If you are dismissed, refer the dispute to the CCMA within 30 days. Our guide on referring an unfair dismissal explains how.