- Labour Court says reinstating hijacked employee was justified, but a warning for misconduct was necessary.
- Dube was not found to be dishonest, but acted improperly by taking company vehicle home without permission.
- Judgment offers a cautionary tale for employees on the risks of breaching workplace policies, even in emergencies.
The Johannesburg Labour Court has delivered a balanced but sobering judgment in a case involving a Gibela Rail Transport Consortium employee who was hijacked after taking a company vehicle home without authorisation.
While the court found that the dismissal of William Dube was substantively unfair and upheld his reinstatement, it also stressed that unauthorised use of workplace assets is a serious offence that must carry consequences, regardless of personal hardship.
Dube, a warehouse supervisor with no prior disciplinary record, had taken the vehicle home after a day of training in Nigel in May 2021, despite only being given permission to use it for work purposes. He never returned it to the depot, intending to do so later, but was hijacked outside his home in Soshanguve by armed men. The traumatic incident left him shocked, without his phone, and forced to walk to the nearest police station to report the crime. The vehicle was recovered the next day, thanks to its tracking device.
Honest but not without fault Â
What followed was a protracted disciplinary process. Gibela charged Dube with two counts: the unauthorised use of the vehicle, which he admitted to, and providing false or misleading information about the time of the hijacking. On this second charge, the employer relied on various statements and reports that contained conflicting times, including a police affidavit and a third-party security report.
However, both the arbitrator and the Labour Court found that Dube’s explanation, that he was traumatised, lacked a timekeeping device, and may have unknowingly signed inaccurate reports, was credible. The court found no evidence of deliberate dishonesty or collusion and noted that even Dube’s manager could not explain why the dismissal was warranted, describing him instead as a reliable and respected worker.
Reinstatement with consequencesÂ
Still, Judge R Lagrange emphasised that the arbitrator had erred in failing to issue a final written warning for the unauthorised use of the vehicle. The company’s disciplinary code treats such misconduct seriously, particularly when committed by someone in a position of responsibility. The court amended the arbitration award to include a 12-month final written warning, effective upon Dube’s return to work.Â
A lesson in accountability Â
This case serves as a cautionary tale about the importance of following workplace procedures, especially when it comes to the use of company property. Even where misconduct is not malicious or dishonest, employers are entitled to expect accountability and compliance from their staff.
In a climate where workplace rules can easily be overlooked under pressure or fatigue, the judgment offers a humane yet firm reminder: good intentions do not excuse bad decisions, especially when those decisions put employer assets and trust at risk.
Conviction.co.za
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
