The Labour Court in Cape Town has upheld the dismissal of Zwelethu Ntame, a former security supervisor at the Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (Prasa), who was found guilty of gross dishonesty and misconduct.
Ntame’s termination stems from multiple charges alleging he worked during unauthorised hours and claimed remuneration for shifts he did not work.
According to court documents, Ntame faced charges related to incidents spanning 2017 and 2018. The first three charges involved allegations that he worked night shifts instead of the day shifts he was scheduled for, without obtaining proper authorisation from either his supervisor or manager.
The fourth charge, which added to his troubles, involved claims for work on 24 and 25 March 2018 when he was not rostered to work at all.
Following an internal disciplinary enquiry, Ntame was dismissed from Prasa. His case then proceeded to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA), where he was found guilty on three counts while being acquitted of only one.
In the aftermath, Ntame sought to overturn the decision through an appeal at the Labour Court, alleging that the internal disciplinary process was rife with procedural unfairness.
Ntame asserted that the extended timeline for the internal investigation occurred without his input, and he claimed the addition of the fourth charge after the extension contradicted Prasa’s policies.
He raised concerns regarding the possible bias of the chairperson of his disciplinary hearing, based on their former role as employee relations manager, arguing that this individual would have had prior knowledge of the allegations against him.
Additionally, he contested the policy violation by having the same person serve as both investigator and initiator in his case.
In response to the first charge, Ntame claimed he had received permission to swap shifts to accommodate an examination schedule. However, evidence provided by three Prasa witnesses refuted his claims, revealing that the person he purportedly contacted for approval was not in a position to authorise shift swaps.
Furthermore, discrepancies in his examination timetable undermined his credibility, as he did not sit for exams on the suggested dates.
Regarding the second charge, which accused him of working day shifts without proper authorisation, the arbitrator dismissed his assertion of a misunderstanding surrounding the shift swap and remuneration change as implausible, noting that he only attempted to adjust his time- card when he feared detection.
In respect of the last charge, the arbitrator noted Ntame claimed he made an error in claiming pay for March 24, 2018, and provided a medical certificate which proved that he was absent, but he asserted he was at work the next day. However, witnesses testified he was not at work as he had claimed.
Ultimately, the arbitrator concluded that by submitting claims for hours not worked, Ntame exhibited dishonesty, possibly having someone else work in his stead.
An aggravating factor was that, more than once, Ntame had put in a claim for wages which was not a true reflection of the time he worked. If it had not been detected, he would have gained from his dishonesty.
Judge Robert Lagrange, evaluating the evidence, expressed satisfaction with the arbitrator’s findings.
He affirmed that Ntame’s grounds for review lacked sufficient merit to question the assessment of misconduct and the breakdown of the trust relationship, which was essential for maintaining his employment
“In the circumstances, I am satisfied her findings and the relief she awarded are not outcomes which no reasonable arbitrator could have arrived at,” said judge Lagrange.
News
Get your news on the go, click here to join the News WhatsApp channel.
