Cable theft - when blood is thicker than water

It was a case of blood being thicker than water when metal theft unit inspector Patrick Anderson arrived to fetch his son from work in Cape Town.

A security officer had just found boxes of suspected stolen cables inside the bags of Keagan Anderson and a colleague‚ Henry Peterson‚ as they clocked off duty at the Parrow Electricity Depot.

Details of the incident‚ and how the inspector tried to downplay the incident are revealed in a judgment handed down by the Labour Court in Johannesburg.

Anderson was a senior inspector of the visible monitoring unit of the Metal Theft Unit of the City of Cape Town. He arrived‚ in his official vehicle‚ to fetch his son on September 6‚ 2012‚ only to find him being confronted by a security officer.

He tried to persuade the officer that the amount of cabling was insignificant and said it would be difficult to make a case against the suspects‚ who had financial obligations and could lose their jobs.

They claimed to have found the cables outside the depot‚ but this was viewed as dubious because such items had to be declared before entering the property. Anderson failed to make any arrests.

He was found guilty of gross misconduct and dismissed for not acting in the best interests of the city.

“Even if he had understandably felt uncomfortable about arresting his son or being involved because his son was a suspect‚ his actions gave the impression that he was involved and gave the impression to the more junior law enforcement officers who arrived later that everything was under control‚” said the court ruling‚ handed down by Judge Robert Lagrange on Friday.

“He never sought to extricate himself from the situation or express his concerns about a personal conflict of interest at the time.”

Anderson approached the court to challenge the findings of an arbitrator who confirmed his guilt and dismissal‚ arguing that he was not obliged to make an arrest. He also questioned the credibility of evidence‚ suggesting that the found cabling had been stolen.

The Labour Court did not accept that he was entitled not to act because he was off-duty and confirmed that his dismissal was the correct course of action.

“The argument that Anderson was entitled to simply look the other way and ignore the situation that confronted him shortly after knocking off work implies that his duty to look after his employer’s interests ended as soon as he knocked off work every day‚” said the ruling.

“The implications of such a proposition are that even if he saw suspects removing copper wire from a (City of Cape Town) vehicle whilst the driver of the vehicle was obviously unaware what was happening‚ he could simply ignore the incident unfolding in front of him and‚ by not intervening‚ act to the detriment of his employer.

“The absurdity of contending for such a policy is evident when its practical implications are considered. Consequently‚ the fact that the obvious has not been stated in a written policy‚ does not mean the arbitrator was wrong in attributing a responsibility to Anderson to intervene or at least to ensure that the matter was attended to by other enforcement officers who were on duty at the time.

“Had Anderson detached himself from involvement in the incident as soon as he realised his son was implicated and handed the matter over to the officers he called‚ the outcome might well have been different.”