JUDGMENT
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
HELD AT JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO: JR622/03
In the matter between
NELSON MAWELELE Applicant
And
COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION
MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION 1st Respondent
W FERREIRA N.O. 2 nd Respondent
APRON SERVICES (PTY) LTD 3 rd Respondent
_________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
_________________________________________________________
REVELAS, J:
[1] This is an application for the review and setting aside of an award made by the second
respondent (“the arbitrator”), who found that the dismissal of the applicant was fair. The
arbitrator made his award after conducting an arbitration hearing under the auspices of the
first respondent, (“the CCMA”).
The applicant, a shift control officer was dismissed by the third respondent, having been
found guilty of four charges. They are:
1. Leaving the workplace early without permission.
2. Failing to work according to standard.
3. Leaving a subordinate with responsibilities he was not able to carry out and before
the end of the shift.
1
1
JUDGMENT
4. Bringing the company's name into disrepute.
[2] These four charges were brought against the applicant after he had left the workplace
to go elsewhere and asked a person by the name of Mr Khoza to take care of his duties. In
his absence several things went wrong.
[3] The third respondent provides certain passenger service for the South African
Airways. As a result of the applicant’s absence certain passenger buses did not get to their
designated airplanes and passengers had to walk some distance to the terminal building,
which was, as argued, a safety risk. Disgruntled passengers articulated their dissatisfaction
and the airline in question indicated to the third respondent that it would rather seek the
services of a different service provider if the third respondent was to continue providing
service of this quality.
[4] The arbitrator found that the four charges on their own did not constitute dismissable
offences, but that their cumulative effect had the result that the third respondent was entitled
to dismiss the applicant. It is common cause that all four charges arose out of the same
incident. The arbitrator further found that the dismissal was procedurally fair and this latter
finding was not attacked on review. The main ground of review was, that the record was
insufficient and thus the matter had to be remitted back to the CCMA.
[5] The record is far from satisfactory but neither party persuaded me that the record was
so deficient that one could not make certain findings about the rationality of the award, that
is the connection between the conclusion and the facts placed before the arbitrator. That
ground was in any event not pursued very seriously although it was apparently not
abandoned.
[6] Secondly, the rationality of the award was attacked. In this regard the arbitrator’s
“splitting” of the charges to the detriment of the applicant, he was criticised. At this
juncture I may just say that this was not argued before the arbitrator. The argument arises
for the first time on review. The arbitrator was also criticised for his failure to apply his
mind to the facts before him.
2
2
JUDGMENT
[7] It was submitted that the finding, that the previous instance when the applicant
delegated his responsibilities to a subordinate and left the workplace before the end of the
shift, was an isolated incident. The applicant contended that he delegated his responsibilities
to Mr Khoza specifically and on several occasions. He also denied that he knew anything
about the standard ground rules to be followed at the workplace. The applicant argued that
his presence would have made no difference, due to the fact that the breakdown of the bus
was the main problem on the night in question.
[8] The arbitrator was also criticised for the finding that Mr Hlongwane's evidence,
pertaining to Mr Khoza's lack of authority to instruct bus drivers to work overtime, should
have been preferred to the evidence of the applicant, that he did have the authority.
[9] In my view, the transgression committed by the applicant was rather serious and the
third respondent may possibly have faced a loss of business as a result of the incident in
question. The applicant also had no right to delegate his duties to Mr Khoza and should not
have done so on several occasions. However he was charged on the basis of one incident.
The charges all flow from one incident.
[10] What the arbitrator had overlooked was whether this was indeed a dismissable
offence. The applicant had worked some seven years for the third respondent and apparently
had certain other warnings. This issued was not clarified to me. Before me, he had a clean
record. I had made specific enquiries in court from the parties in this regard. The offence is
one which should be corrected with progressive discipline.
It seems that the applicant does not deem it necessary to obey instructions. It is not for him
to leave early and leave others to do his work but he did deserve a warning, before being
summarily dismissed.
summarily dismissed.
[11] There was also evidence that as a result of poor weather conditions two incoming
flights were delayed. The applicant had no knowledge that these flights would be delayed.
3
3
JUDGMENT
Furthermore, due to a breakdown in a number of buses there were insufficient buses to
transport the passengers on these two flights at the arrival hall. As a result of this delay the
applicant was charged with the four separate offences, which in my view, should have been
one. I gained the impression that the applicant was punished for the consequences of his
offence, rather than the offence itself.
[12] The third respondent's counsel admitted that the fourth charge, namely that of
bringing the company's name into disrepute, was a consequence of the first charge and those
two charges, at best, could lead me to opine that that was a splitting of charges. However,
he argued that the second and third charges were different in that delegating authority was a
separate offence. Insofar as the third charge is concerned I am not quite certain that the
failure to work according to standard, (the second charge), is the same as the first charge,
(leaving the workplace early without permission). It seems to be the same as the third
charge, (leaving a subordinate with responsibilities he was unable to perform). The fact that
the applicant delegated his work to someone else should not constitute a separate offence.
He did so as part of an in perpetrating the dereliction of his duties or leaving the workplace
without permission, which is the offence in question. If he did not delegate his duties that
afternoon, his offence might have been regarded as even more serious. The four separate
charges are indicative of a shotgun approach.
Furthermore his offence is one where an employer should observe progressive discipline.
The arbitrator also held that on their own the four separate charges, (including the charge of
leaving the workplace) are not dismissable offences. There is only one offence. Therefore,
in the absence of a clear warning relating to a similar offence, dismissal was not appropriate.
in the absence of a clear warning relating to a similar offence, dismissal was not appropriate.
[13] The offence or charge is serious, but I gained the impression that other matters also
went wrong on this particular day which the arbitrator did not take into account. The
sanction imposed was a rather harsh penalty on the applicant in the circumstances. This is a
case where it should have been made clear, in no uncertain terms, to Mr Mawelele that
should he ever leave the workplace again he would lose his job. There are no doubt many
people waiting at the third respondent’s gates who are looking for jobs and who are prepared
to work their full hours and not leave early. It is not for Mr Mawelele to leave the
4
4
JUDGMENT
workplace early. Yet, he was entitled to a warning. The fact that so much went wrong on
this day, should not detract therefrom.
[14] I am also cautious that I should not interfere with the sanction of the employer. If the
employer feels that an employee should be dismissed, courts and arbitrators must be
cautious not to interfere unnecessarily with that sanction because they do not work at this
particular workplace and they do not know what the constraints are.
[15] Yet I also have to look at what is fair and, in my experience, I believe it was unfair not
to have given the applicant a final written warning.
[16] In the circumstances I make the following finding:
1. The award of the second respondent is hereby set aside and
substituted with the following:
“The applicant is to receive a final written warning
to the effect that should he commit a similar
transgression in the next two years he may be
dismissed immediately”.
2. There is no order as to costs.
____________________
REVELAS J
For the Applicant: Mr R Daniels
Instructed by Cheadle Thompson and
Haysom Attorneys
For the Respondent: Adv. Le Grange
Date of Hearing: 15 October 2004
5
5
JUDGMENT
Date of Judgment: 18 October 2004
6
6