Dismissed for making false claims
IN A RECENT matter (Ndzimande and Others v Didben NO and Others (JR 1404/14) (2019) ZALCJHB 73 (2 April 2019) the Labour Court considered the dismissal of three employees who made disparaging statements about their employer on public radio.
The court ultimately upheld the arbitration award of the CCMA, which dismissed the employees.
Key facts to the finding were that: there was a policy related to external communications by employees; the employees in question understood the consequences of breaching this code and made statements which were false, malicious and damaging to the employer’s reputation.
The decision is important for employees and employers alike.
On September 28, 2012, a group of employees, having waived the grievance process contemplated by the relevant collective agreement, marched to the Department of Labour.
They prepared a memorandum of grievances to be handed to the department. The grievances included alleged non-payment of monies due to employees and other issues related to health and safety, and shift systems.
During the course of the march, three employees made statements in interviews with journalists of SABC radio stations (Ikwekwezi FM, Ukhozi FM and Motsweding FM) about their employer and the grievances.
These statements were aired shortly thereafter.
As a result of these statements, the employees faced charges of gross misconduct and after a disciplinary process, they were dismissed.
The employees challenged the fairness of their dismissals at the CCMA.
The presiding commissioner found their dismissals to be fair.
The commissioner reasoned that the employer had a standing policy pertaining to external communications. The commissioner found that the employees ought to have been aware of this rule and that they failed to comply with the rule by making statements to the media.
The employees then approached the Labour Court on review alleging that the commissioner committed various gross irregularities and assisted the employer during the arbitration proceedings. On review, the court considered the arbitration proceedings and the evidence led by both parties.
The court ultimately upheld the arbitration award of the CCMA.
A key element of the employer’s case in this matter was the Code of Communication in place at the workplace. In terms of this code, employees were not permitted to make statements to the media without prior authorisation from a designated authority within the business.
At the time, the employer’s chief operations officer was the designated authority responsible for providing permission to employees who sought to appear in the media.
The ultimate question before the court was whether the statements made by the employees on radio constituted misconduct that was gross enough to justify dismissal.
The court established that the employees in question were aware of the Code of Communication in the workplace and that they understood the consequences of breaching it.
The court said, in the ordinary course, there is nothing wrong with employees raising legitimate grievances and threatening strike action.
However, it is incorrect for employees to make false and defamatory statements in public which may have serious repercussions for their employer. This is further enhanced when employees are subject to specific policies and procedures in relation to public statements.
The court held that the statements made were false, malicious and damaging to the employer’s reputation. In making these statements, the employees also breached the employer’s Code of Communication. The sanction of dismissal was held to be appropriate.