CARMEL RICKARD: Stick to the rules employers
An employer’s failure to act against someone who breaks a rule for a period doesn’t automatically mean the rule didn’t apply
Corruption and misappropriation of funds on a colossal scale by high-ranking servants of the state is no example to follow, so I am always interested in how the labour courts handle employee fraud, even when the amount appears paltry. JDG Trading went to court over just such an issue, involving staffer AS Schlebusch, who was entitled to use a company credit card when travelling on work business. He was dismissed after the employer discovered he used the card "for purchases he was not entitled to", causing a loss to the company of R1,028.40 during June/July 2015. At the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation & Arbitration the commissioner found the dismissal unfair, citing the company’s "historical inconsistency": previous court decisions had held that historical inconsistency occurs where an employer has in the past, as a matter of practice, not dismissed or disciplined employees for contravening a rule, but later does so. The commissioner said there was evidence that Schlebusch had...
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.
Subscribe now to unlock this article.
Support BusinessLIVE’s award-winning journalism for R129 per month (digital access only).
There’s never been a more important time to support independent journalism in SA. Our subscription packages now offer an ad-free experience for readers.
Cancel anytime.
Questions? Email helpdesk@businesslive.co.za or call 0860 52 52 00. Got a subscription voucher? Redeem it now.