MANAGING CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS WITHOUT CREATING UNFAIR LABOUR PRACTICES
Johan van Deventer, KZN, Regional Manager, Labournet
Customer complaints are part of daily life in many sectors, with those in the wholesale and retail sector being at the coalface of it. Cashiers, sales assistants, merchandisers, warehouse staff, supervisors, delivery teams, and managers all work under pressure, often in direct contact with customers who may be frustrated, impatient, or emotional. A key challenge facing employers in this industry is to protect the customer relationship without acting unfairly towards the employee.
The Legal Starting Point
In South African labour law, an employer is entitled to investigate complaints and to take appropriate action where an employee has breached workplace rules, while not treating a customer account as proof of misconduct. The Labour Relations Act recognises an employee’s right not to be unfairly dismissed or subjected to an unfair labour practice, which includes unfair suspension or other unfair disciplinary action short of dismissal.
This distinction is important. A complaint can justify an investigation, but it does not automatically justify a warning, suspension, demotion, transfer, or dismissal. In retail environments, customers may complain about rudeness, slow service, suspected dishonesty, pricing disputes, queue delays, refusal to accept returns, or alleged discrimination. While some complaints are genuine and serious, others may be exaggerated, incomplete, or influenced by the customer’s own misunderstanding of store policies. Employers therefore need a process that is prompt, objective, and fair.
Handling the Complaint Fairly
Separating customer management from employee discipline is an important first step. The customer should be acknowledged and listened to and, where necessary, offered a practical remedy within company policy, such as an apology on behalf of the business, replacement of goods, or escalation to a manager. Where a remedy isn’t appropriate, the customer should still be given a clear explanation of the relevant policy. It is critical that the employer avoids telling the customer that the employee will be disciplined before the facts are established as such a promise can compromise the fairness of the process and create the impression that the outcome has been predetermined.
Next comes recording the complaint properly. A useful complaint record should capture the date, time, branch, till number or department, names of witnesses, the customer’s version, any available Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) footage, transaction records, WhatsApp messages, emails, refund documents, or delivery records. In the retail sector, objective evidence is often available and should be preserved quickly because footage may be overwritten and witnesses may work different shifts. A decision based only on a customer’s anger, without testing the facts, is vulnerable to challenge.
The employee must then be given an opportunity to respond. This is not merely a courtesy. Fair process requires that the employee knows the allegation and has a reasonable opportunity to state their version before disciplinary action is taken. The Code of Good Practice: Dismissal provides guidance on how legal obligations relating to dismissals for misconduct, incapacity, and operational requirements apply. It emphasises fairness, mutual respect, and a balance between employment justice and the efficient operation of the business.
This does not mean that every complaint requires a formal disciplinary hearing. Minor service complaints may be addressed through coaching, counselling, refresher training, or a discussion about customerservice standards. The Code recognises that procedures may be adapted to context, including the realities of smaller employers, provided that the fundamental principles of fairness are respected. In a small independent store, the process may be less formal than in a national retail chain, but it must still be even-handed, rational, and documented.
Suspension, Transfer and Consistency
Suspension should be used carefully. Employers sometimes remove an employee from the floor immediately after a customer complaint to ‘keep the peace’ or reassure the customer. That may be appropriate where the allegation is serious, where the employee could interfere with evidence or witnesses, or where continued presence creates a real operational risk. But suspension can itself become an unfair labour practice if it is punitive, unpaid without proper basis, unnecessarily long, or imposed without considering the employee’s side. The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) recognises unfair suspension and unfair disciplinary action short of dismissal as forms of unfair labour practice.
Demotion, transfer, and reduction of hours are also high-risk responses. A common retail mistake is to move an employee from a customer-facing role to a back-office or stockroom function after a complaint, without following a fair process. If the move reduces status, pay, prospects, responsibilities, or benefits, it may amount to disciplinary action or demotion. If it is imposed unfairly, the employer may face an unfair labour practice claim. Employers should therefore distinguish between a temporary operational arrangement during an investigation and a disciplinary outcome. The temporary arrangement should be reasonable, explained, documented, and reviewed.
Consistency is another key risk. Retail employers often discipline junior employees harshly for complaints while overlooking similar conduct by supervisors, permanent staff, or high-performing employees. Inconsistent discipline can make an otherwise valid sanction unfair. Employers should compare similar incidents, consider the employee’s length of service and record, assess the seriousness of the conduct, and apply the disciplinary code consistently. Serious misconduct may still justify a severe sanction, but the employer should be able to explain why the sanction is appropriate in the circumstances.
Keeping Judgement with the Employer
Customer pressure must not replace managerial judgment. The customer is not the chairperson of the disciplinary enquiry. Even where a major client, franchise customer, or high-spend account demands that an employee be removed, the employer must still apply its own mind. If the complaint relates to alleged racism, harassment, dishonesty, assault, or gross insubordination, the matter should be investigated urgently and carefully. If it relates to tone of voice, slow service, or a misunderstanding of a returns policy, training or counselling may be more appropriate than discipline.
Employers should also consider whether the complaint reveals a workplace problem rather than employee misconduct. A cashier blamed for long queues may be working with understaffing, faulty scanners, or unclear price labels. A sales assistant accused of being unhelpful may not have been trained on a promotion. A warehouse picker blamed for late delivery may be affected by scheduling or stock-control problems. If the root cause is operational, disciplining the employee may be unfair and ineffective.
Getting the Outcome Right
Where discipline is justified, the sanction must be proportionate. The purpose of discipline is generally corrective, not punitive, unless the misconduct is so serious that continued employment becomes intolerable. A first complaint about poor tone may justify counselling, while repeated discourtesy after training and warnings may justify formal discipline. Proven dishonesty, violence, or serious abuse of a customer may justify dismissal, but only after a fair process and consideration of the evidence, the rule, the employee’s knowledge of the rule, consistency, and the appropriateness of dismissal.
For employers in the wholesale and retail industry, the safest approach is to build a complaint-handling system that links customer service, HR, and line management. In practice, this means putting the following in place:
Managers should be trained not to make emotional decisions on the shop floor
Complaint forms should be standardised
CCTV and till records should be preserved
Employees should be allowed to respond
Suspensions should be authorised by an appropriate manager and reviewed regularly
Outcomes should be recorded
Disciplinary action should match the seriousness of the proven misconduct
A well-managed complaint process protects everyone. Customers feel heard, employees are treated with dignity, and employers reduce the risk of CCMA disputes.
Employees generally have 30 days to refer unfair dismissal disputes and 90 days to refer unfair labour practice disputes, so poor decisions can quickly become formal litigation risk. The goal is not to choose between the customer and the employee, but rather to respond to the customer while still making fair, evidence-based employment decisions.
In a competitive retail environment, reputation matters. But fairness is also part of reputation. Employers who investigate complaints properly, apply discipline consistently, and avoid knee-jerk sanctions are better placed to defend their decisions, retain trust, and maintain a workplace culture that supports both customer service and legal compliance.
T: +27 (0)31 266 6570
M: +27 (0)82 786 7480
