The dismissal of a former Woolworths employee, who allegedly breached company policies by failing to disclose a personal relationship with a colleague and being dishonest when questioned about it, has been found to be substantively unfair.
The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) made its finding in February after the referral of an unfair dismissal by Molefe Lavet Mokoena in December last year.
The commission also ordered that Mokoena be compensated for four months. Mokoena preferred compensation instead of reinstatement due to intolerable working conditions, according to his lawyer.
Mokoena, who was employed as operations manager at a Woolworths store in Maponya Mall in Soweto, was accused of being in a relationship with Daisy, who later threatened Lufuno Tshiovhe, a contractor who was stationed at the same store and whom Mokoena was proposing to have a relationship with.
Mokoena was subjected to a disciplinary hearing and was found guilty and dismissed.
Tshiovhe testified before the CCMA that though she started talking to Mokoena and she was considering having a relationship with him, she decided not to be involved in any relationship with him after Daisy's threats and/or confrontation.
The store manager, Simphiwe Mabuza, said he conducted a structured interview to ask whether Mokoena was in a relationship with Tshiovhe and whether he sent her lunch money. Mokoena denied both these allegations.
Mabuza testified that honesty in their line of work was very important and if an employee was not honest, it affected the way they worked. Mabuza said trust was broken because he gave Mokoena two opportunities, but he still denied the facts even when there were documents presented to him.
He said if an employee was in a relationship in the same store, that employee was supposed to disclose it.
“Unfortunately, Daisy was not called as a witness and since the applicant (Mokoena) disputed being in a relationship with her, I find that the respondent (Woolworths) failed to discharge the onus to prove the existence of any of the relationships,” said the arbitrator, commissioner Caroline Rirhandzu Hlongwane, in her award.
“Though he denied communication with [Tshiovhe] or proposing to her, dismissal was harsh under the circumstances. Having said that, I find that the applicant's dismissal was substantively unfair
— Caroline Rirhandzu Hlongwane, arbitrator
She said Woolworths' two witnesses, Mabuza and Silas Modise, a store manager in Bryanston, testified that there was a rule requiring employees to disclose their personal relationship with fellow colleagues. Hlongwane said none of them was able to point out such rule.
However, Modise referred her to the company's disciplinary procedure and policy, which dealt with dismissible offences, specifically clause 29, which stated: “Any form of dishonesty that impacts negatively on the employee/employer relationship for example, but not limited to any form of misrepresentation and/or non-disclosure of relevant information.”
Hlongwane said clause 29 would have been relevant if the applicant really dated the two women, but since no relationship was proved to have existed, there could not be any misrepresentation or non-disclosure which affected the employment relationship between Mokoena and the employer.
She said Mokoena was dismissed for being dishonest when he was asked about his personal relationship with a colleague, but the employer had failed to prove the existence of the alleged relationship as well as existence of the rule regarding disclosing any personal relationship.
Hlongwane said though Mokoena denied communicating with Tshiovhe, he was not obliged to disclose any personal relationship.
“Though he denied communication with [Tshiovhe] or proposing to her, dismissal was harsh under the circumstances. Having said that, I find that the applicant's dismissal was substantively unfair.”
Mokoena had sought compensation should the commission find in his favour.
“I found it reasonable and justifiable to order that the applicant be compensated for four months since he was dismissed in December 2024 and as at the time of the arbitration, he was still unemployed.”
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.