WHEN SHOPLIFTERS MAY NOT MOP FLOORS

The applicant, an assistant manager at Jet Makhado, was dismissed by the respondent for making a suspected shoplifter mop the floor and pay double for alleged stolen goods, thus violating the company’s policy. The applicant referred the matter to the CCMA. The CCMA ruled that the dismissal was fair, rejecting her ignorance defence, and emphasising her responsibility as senior employee to know and follow guidelines. The decision by the CCMA confirmed that dismissal by the respondent was an appropriate sanction for her misconduct.

South African Food Retail and Agricultural Workers Union obo Madou / Jet Makhado Crossing [2024] 7 BALR 790 (CCMA)

Case summary

The applicant, an assistant manager at Jet Makhado, was dismissed after she was found guilty of misconduct involving a suspected shoplifter. The incident occurred on 9 November 2023, when the applicant apprehended a suspected shoplifter and took actions that violated the company’s guidelines on handling such situations. Specifically, the applicant made the shoplifter mop the store floor and pay twice the amount of the alleged stolen goods, which she then confiscated and kept in the store.

The respondent, Jet Makhado, argued that the applicant’s actions amounted to a gross violation of the shoplifter’s dignity and a breach of the company’s clear guidelines on dealing with shoplifters. The respondent maintained that these actions were dehumanising, and tarnished both the shoplifter’s and the company’s reputation, which could potentially lead to legal action against the company. The applicant’s defence was that the shoplifter volunteered to pay double and mop the floor to avoid police involvement, and that she, as the assistant manager, was not aware of the specific guidelines on handling shoplifters, despite having attended a refresher course on the company’s disciplinary policy and ethics earlier in the year.

The applicant referred her dismissal to the CCMA, which was tasked with determining whether the applicant’s dismissal was substantively fair. The commissioner found that the applicant, being in a senior position, should have been aware of the company’s policies and procedures, especially those relating to the handling of shoplifters. The commissioner rejected the applicant’s claim of ignorance, emphasising that someone in her position is expected to know and follow company guidelines.

The commissioner’s decision was guided by Item 7 of Schedule 8 of the Labour Relations Act, which provides guidelines on determining the fairness of a dismissal for misconduct. The factors to consider include whether the employee contravened a workplace rule, whether the rule was valid and reasonable, whether the employee was or could reasonably have been expected to be aware of the rule, whether the rule was consistently applied, and whether dismissal was an appropriate sanction for the rule’s contravention.

The evidence presented showed that the applicant was aware of her responsibilities and had access to the company’s policies through the TFG Lean platform, which was easily accessible to all employees. The applicant’s argument that she was unaware of the guidelines was found to be implausible, given her role as a senior employee responsible for ensuring that company policies and procedures are adhered to. The commissioner noted that ignorance of the law or company policy is not a valid defence, especially for someone in a leadership position.

The commissioner further held that the rule prohibiting the actions taken by the applicant was valid and reasonable, as it served as a control mechanism in dealing with suspected shoplifters. The applicant’s decision to impose her own form of punishment, rather than following the established guidelines, was deemed a serious breach of her duties. The respondent’s disciplinary policy, which states that failure to comply with the company’s rules and policies could result in disciplinary action, including dismissal, was applied consistently in this case.

The commissioner concluded that the applicant’s actions were inappropriate and that dismissal was an appropriate sanction for the contravention of the company’s rules. The applicant had pleaded guilty during her disciplinary hearing, further supporting the decision to dismiss her.

In summary, the commissioner determined that the applicant’s dismissal was substantively fair and dismissed her challenge to the dismissal.

This article does not constitute legal advice. For an informed opinion and/or assistance with a labour-related matter, you are encouraged to arrange a formal consultation with the author.

We will continue to keep you informed and updated.

Inform Empower Comply

Since 1998