FALSIFICATION OF RECORDS

Medical certificates are favourite targets of workplace fraudsters, who may either falsify dates or the entire document. Where medical certificates are found tampered with by employees, dismissal is invariably warranted. Falsification of time sheets is another widespread form of deception, for which dismissal has been upheld.
For further information on any labour related matters, you can [...]

More on page 193

DRUG USE

If there is a clear rule against the use of drugs working hours, and the employee breaks that rule, the gravity of the breach must be assessed according to such factors as the employee’s history of drug use, prior counselling, the circumstances in which the offence was committed, the nature of the employee’s work, and [...]

More on page 191

DISHONESTY

‘Dishonesty’ can consist of any act or omission which entails deceit. This may include withholding information from the employer, or making a false statement or misrepresentation with the intent of deceiving the employer.
A misrepresentation by an employee before the commencement of employment has been held to be sufficient to warrant dismissal, even if the misrepresentation [...]

More on page 189

DISCLOSING CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

Disclosure by employees of confidential information to a competitor of the employer clearly amounts to a breach of trust. Acquiring confidential information by deceptive means may also justify dismissal.‘ Whistleblowers’ ie employees who disclose unlawful acts of their employers to authorities now receive special protection under the Protected Disclosure Act. Dismissal of employees protected by [...]

More on page 187

DAMAGE TO PROPERTY

Employees are required to respect the employers’ property. If an employee wilfully damages the property of the employee, dismissal is almost invariably justified. The justification in such cases flows more from the employee’s malicious intent than from the actual damage caused; where intent is present, dismissal is warranted even if the employer suffered only minor [...]

More on page 185

UNAUTHORISED USE OF EMPLOYER’S PROPERTY

Articles Comments (0)

The unauthorised use of company property is generally regarded as sufficient to warrant dismissal. In such cases, employers must prove that accused employees were indeed in possession of the goods in question, and that they did not have permission to take the goods. Employers must also prove that the employees knew that the goods were in fact in their possession.

For further information on any labour related matters, you can contact
Bernard Reisner:

W.Tel no.: 021 423 3959
Fax: 021 423 2105
Cell: 082 433 8714
E-mail: bernard@capelabour.co.za
Website: www.capelabour.co.za

capelabour @ September 1, 2010

THEFT / UNAUTORISED POSSESSION

Articles Comments (0)

Employees are guilty of theft if they appropriate goods belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the owner of the use and possession of those goods. Theft therefore requires proof of intention to deprive the owner of use and possession and knowledge that the act was unlawful. It must also be proved that the employee committed an act by which the owner is actually deprived of possession.

For further information on any labour related matters, you can contact
Bernard Reisner:

W.Tel no.: 021 423 3959
Fax: 021 423 2105
Cell: 082 433 8714
E-mail: bernard@capelabour.co.za
Website: www.capelabour.co.za

capelabour @ September 1, 2010

SLEEPING ON DUTY

Articles Comments (0)

Employees may be disciplined for sleeping on duty only if:

• They are actually asleep at a time when they should be attending to their duties;
• The employee’s unconsciousness was not caused by some cause beyond his or her control;
• The employee was or should have been aware at the time that sleeping constituted a disciplinary offence.

Arbitrators have been ready to accept circumstantial evidence in such cases, such as snoring, the posture of the employee at the time he was spotted. If employees fall asleep as a result of work-related exhaustion or because they are on sleep-inducing medication, they will not generally be guilty of misconduct, unless they could and should have brought their condition to the attention of the employer.

Napping on duty will rarely be regarded as an offence justifying dismissal at first instance, except if the employee is a security guard or is in a position where a momentary lapse in concentration could have serious consequences for the employer or other workers.

For further information on any labour related matters, you can contact
Bernard Reisner:

W.Tel no.: 021 423 3959
Fax: 021 423 2105
Cell: 082 433 8714
E-mail: bernard@capelabour.co.za
Website: www.capelabour.co.za

capelabour @ September 1, 2010