THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Not Reportable
Case No: JR 699/23
In the matter between:
EUROPCAR SOUTH AFRICA, A DIVISION OF MOTORS
GROUP LIMITED Applicant
and
THE COMMISISON FOR CONCILIAION
MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION (CCMA) 1
st Respondent
BULENI BUSAKWE N.O– 2nd Respondent
PUMEZA GLENN-POSWA 3rd Respondent
Heard: 9 September 2025
Delivered: 10 December 2025
___________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
___________________________________________________________________
RAJAH, AJ
Introduction
2
[1] This is an application in terms of section 157(1) read with section 145 of the
Labour Relations Act1 (LRA). The applicant, Europcar South Africa, a division
of Motors Group Limited (the employer), seeks an order reviewing and setting
aside an arbitration award issued under the auspices of the Commission for
Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) on 21 April 2023 under case
number ECPE4674-21.
[2] In the award, the commissioner found that the dismissal of the respondent,
Ms Pumeza Glenn-Poswa (the employee), was substantively unfair.
Factual Background
[3] The applicant, Europcar South Africa, a division of Motors Holdings Limited,
operates in the vehicle rental business. Its vehicles constitute revenue-
generating assets at the core of its operations. A central submission by the
employer is that employees may only use company vehicles with proper
authorisation. Unauthorised use of such vehicles is expressly recorded in the
disciplinary code as a serious offence warranting dismissal.
[4] Europcar’s car division before this Court has conducted its rental operations
since 17 February 2016 in the area. While vehicles could occasionally be
used by employees, such use was permitted only subject to strict conditions.
In the present matter, it appears from the evidence that these lines had, over
time, become blurred. As will be discussed further below, this ambiguity
complicates the assessment of whether the employee’s conduct concretely
amounted to misconduct.
[5] The employee, Pumeza Glenn- Poswa, was employed by the applicant since
2010 and had been promoted to the position of supervisor. During the COVID-
19 pandemic, on 20 August 2020, he accepted an offer of alternative
employment as a rental agent, effective from 1 September 2020, as an
alternative to possible retrenchment.
[6] In his supervisory role, Poswa was required from time to time to utilise
company vehicles, on the condition that the vehicle be returned promptly
1 Act 66 of 1995, as amended.
3
thereafter. It is common cause that he was charged with misconduct and
found guilty at an internal disciplinary hearing of unauthorised use of a
company vehicle. The charge related to events on 10 June 2021, when he
used a company vehicle without prior authorisation from his manager and for
personal purposes.
[7] The evidence further showed that on the evening of 9 June 2021, while
Poswa was working a late shift, a vehicle in the vicinity of his residence had
broken down with a flat tyre. The following day, being an off -day for the
branch, the same company vehicle required tyre repairs. The employer
emphasised throughout that the vehicle in question remained a revenue-
generating vehicle and should have been available for rental purposes.
The award
[8] At paragraph 26 of the award (bundle page 96), the commissioner held that,
as a result of alternative employment offered on operational grounds, a ‘ new
era’ had commenced in the employment relationship.
[9] It was common cause that on 10 June 2021, the employee had used a
company vehicle for personal purposes without authorisation.
[10] The commissioner could not find the employee’s conduct rendered the
employment relationship intolerable, and concluded that the dismissal was
substantively unfair.
[11] In mitigation, reliance was placed by the commissioner on the employee’s
previously unblemished disciplinary record.
[12] At paragraph 40 of the award (bundle page 99), the commissioner held that it
was “inconceivable that the vehicle could have been used for revenue
purposes” and concluded that the employer had not suffered actual prejudice.
[13] The employer’s submission, recorded at paragraph 51 of the award (bundle
page 101), was that there is a clear link between dishonesty and unauthorised
use of company property, which ordinarily warrants dismissal where the rule is
4
clear, consistently applied, and goes to the heart of the employment
relationship.
Grounds for review
[14] The employer contends that the award is unreasonable and stands to be
reviewed and set aside on the following grounds:
1. The commissioner failed to appreciate the nature of the employer’s
business, namely that vehicles are revenue- generating assets at the
core of its operations.
2. The rule prohibiting personal use of company vehicles was important,
consistently applied, and its breach undermined the trust relationship.
3. There was a direct instruction for the vehicle to be returned, confirmed
by messages exchanged between the parties.
4. The commissioner erred in holding that it was ‘ inconceivable’ the
vehicle could have been used for revenue purposes, disregarding
evidence that vehicles remain available for bookings even if none are
confirmed on a particular day.
5. The commissioner failed to engage with the employer’s submission
that unauthorised personal use of company vehicles is akin to
dishonesty and constitutes dismissible misconduct.
6. The commissioner downplayed the gravity of the misconduct by
overemphasising the employee’s clean disciplinary record.
Legal framework
[15] The test for review is whether the decision reached by the commissioner is
one that a reasonable decision- maker could not reach on the material before
them (Sidumo and Another v Rustenburg Platinum Mines Ltd and Others
2).
2 [2007] ZACC 22; (2007) 28 ILJ 2405 (CC).
5
[16] Further, in another well cited case CUSA v Tao Ying Metal Industries and
Others3, the Court held that commissioners are required to apply their minds
to the issues properly before them. A failure to consider material submissions
or evidence may render an award unreasonable.
Oral Submissions
[17] On behalf of the applicant, Mr Wessels emphasised that the rule prohibiting
personal use of company vehicles must be enforced strictly, allowing for no
deviation “not even by an inch” . He submitted that once the boundary is
blurred, it becomes impossible to determine whether unauthorised use within
or beyond the province could be condoned, undermining the trust relationship.
[18] For the employee, Mr Somo argued that the commissioner had properly
weighed all relevant considerations, including the employee’s long service,
previously unblemished record, and the circumstances under which the
vehicle was used. He contended that the commissioner was entitled to
conclude that dismissal, while permissible, was too harsh in the
circumstances, and that the employment relationship had not irretrievably
broken down.
Conclusion
[19] This court has noted the commissioner’s reasoning and I am inclined to agree
with it. There is no question that the rule prohibiting unauthorised use of
company vehicles is important, given the nature of the employer’s core
business and the revenue- generating purpose of its fleet. However, in the
overall circumstances, the conduct in issue does not justify the conclusion that
the employment relationship had become intolerable. The true question for
this Court is whether the rule was sufficiently clear and consistently applied to
prohibit the employee’s conduct in an unequivocal manner. While the rule may
have existed in written form, the evidence suggests that, in practice, the line
between permitted and prohibited use had become blurred by the conduct of
both employer and employee.
3 2009 (2) 204 (CC); 2009 (1) BCLR 1 (CC).
6
[20] This Court is of the view that the commissioner’s finding, namely that the
dismissal was substantively unfair, is reasonable and justified on the evidence
properly before him. There is accordingly no basis for this Court to interfere
with the award, and the review sought must fail.
[21] In the result, the following order is made:
Order
1. The application to review and set aside the arbitration award issued
under the auspices of the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and
Arbitration (CCMA) on 21 April 2023 under case number ECPE467421
is dismissed.
2. The arbitration award stands.
3. There is no order as to costs.
_____________________
S. Rajah
Acting Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa
7
Appearances:
For the Applicant: T Wessels
Instructed by:
For the Respondent: D Somo
Instructed by: Legal Aid