Court sides with PSA after contract non-renewal and workplace complaint collide in HR dispute
A workplace showdown at the Public Service Association of SA Inc has put HR complaint handling and contract decisions under the microscope, with a federal court ruling on November 12, 2025.
Sarah Sangau, once an industrial officer at the PSA, took her employer to court after her fixed-term contract wasn’t renewed. She claimed the real reason for her exit was retaliation: she had complained to management about a colleague’s alleged bullying, and soon after, found herself out of a job. The PSA, for its part, said her work just wasn’t up to scratch and that her conduct had become disruptive.
Sangau’s contract began in June 2022 and was extended for six months in June 2023. The trouble, according to her complaint, started when she reported a co-worker, Nicole Connell, for aggressive behavior in August 2023. While the PSA substantiated her complaint, Sangau said management didn’t want to deal with the deeper issues. Instead, she alleged, she was singled out for discipline, while others who breached workplace rules faced little consequence.
Things escalated quickly. Sangau was suspended from her duties on August 25, 2023, after allegations surfaced that she had shared inappropriate material with colleagues and ignored a directive not to contact a co-worker during her suspension. She insisted these claims were baseless and were only raised after she spoke up about workplace bullying.
The PSA, meanwhile, argued that Sangau’s contract wasn’t renewed because of ongoing concerns about her performance and behavior. Management said she had been warned about her conduct, and that her complaint about Connell had been properly investigated. They pointed to their responsibility to maintain a safe workplace and comply with anti-discrimination laws as part of their decision-making process.
Sangau also alleged that she was pressured to resign and that the timing of her dismissal was no accident. She suggested the PSA wanted to avoid changes in employment law set for December 2023 that could have made her a permanent employee. She sought $170,000 for lost salary, $30,000 for pain and suffering, and penalties against the PSA and two managers.
After reviewing the evidence, Judge Brown dismissed Sangau’s application. The court found that the PSA’s decision not to extend her contract was based on her conduct and work performance—not because she exercised her right to complain. The judge noted that while Sangau felt isolated and unfairly targeted, the reasons given by the PSA were credible and supported by the record.
For HR professionals, this case is a timely reminder: handling workplace complaints requires not just process, but transparency and documentation. When performance or conduct issues arise, clear communication and fair procedures are essential—not just to comply with the law, but to build trust and avoid costly disputes. The Sangau case shows how quickly a workplace conflict can escalate, and why HR’s role in managing both people and process has never been more critical.
