- The Labour Court found that R1.37 million in ATM cash shortages occurred while custodians had exclusive control of the money.
- The employees failed to provide any reasonable explanation for the losses, amounting to gross negligence.
- The arbitration award reinstating the employees was set aside, and the dismissals were confirmed as fair.
R1.37 million in cash went missing from ATMs serviced by G4S custodians over six months, with the shortages arising on routes where the same employees had direct and exclusive control of the money during replenishment.
The Labour Court found that the losses occurred while the cash was under the custodians’ control and ruled that their dismissal was fair after they failed to account for the missing funds.
Parties and background
G4S Cash Solutions (Pty) Ltd brought a review application against NUMSA, acting on behalf of Samuel Mosimanyana and eight other employees, following an arbitration award declaring their dismissals unfair.
The employees were custodians responsible for transporting and replenishing ATM cash. Between January and June 2019, shortages totalling R1 377 690 were recorded on their routes, resulting in financial liability for G4S.
The court heard that G4S operates a tightly controlled cash handling system with multiple verification stages designed to ensure accountability at every point in the chain of custody. No evidence showed any failure in this system before the cash was handed to the custodians.
Once the employees signed for the sealed cash, they assumed full responsibility for it during delivery and ATM replenishment.
The incident and investigation
The shortages were discovered when cash returned from ATM routes did not match recorded amounts. A detailed investigation examined every stage of the process, including tellers, vault operations, and transport procedures.
No irregularities were found before the cash reached the custodians. The losses were instead linked to the ATM stage, where custodians worked alone inside cubicles without camera surveillance and handled both the loading and return of cash.
Acting Judge S Snyman held, “On the probabilities, the only time when the cash shortages would most likely have occurred is in the course of it being entrusted to the employees.”
A significant reduction in losses followed the removal of the employees from these routes, with shortages dropping from over R1.3 million to approximately R134 000 in the next six months.
Arbitration and dispute
NUMSA referred an unfair dismissal dispute to the bargaining council, where arbitrator Natasha Moni found that the dismissals were substantively and procedurally unfair and ordered reinstatement with back pay.
G4S challenged this outcome, arguing that the arbitrator misunderstood the nature of the charges and failed to properly assess the evidence.
Court findings on substantive fairness
The Labour Court found that the arbitrator adopted an incorrect interpretation of the duty to account, treating it as a narrow obligation to count or report cash.
Judge Snyman said, “The failure to account for the cash… was that they failed to discharge their duties with the due care expected of them.”
The court found that G4S had established a prima facie case that the shortages occurred while the cash was under the custodians’ control. This required the employees to provide a reasonable explanation. They failed to do so.
Most of the employees did not testify. Those who did offered explanations that were unsupported or implausible. “Their failure to proffer any such explanation was glaring,” the court said.
Gross negligence and breach of trust
The court found that the employees’ conduct amounted to gross negligence, given the scale of the losses and the nature of their duties.
Judge Snyman found, “This shows a material departure from the norm… expected of a reasonable employee.”
The court rejected the argument that liability depended on proof of theft, making it clear that failure to account for entrusted cash constitutes serious misconduct.
Inconsistency and procedural fairness
The employees argued that other staff in the cash-handling chain were not disciplined, making their dismissal inconsistent.
The court rejected this argument, finding no proper basis for comparison between custodians and other employees. Judge Snyman held, “A proper like-for-like comparison” had not been established.
On procedural fairness, the court found no evidence that the employees were prejudiced during disciplinary proceedings. They participated fully and failed to show that any missing information affected their ability to defend themselves.
Conclusion and order
The Labour Court found that the arbitration award was unreasonable and could not stand. Judge Snyman held, “The dismissal of the employees was substantively and procedurally fair.”
The award was reviewed and set aside, and replaced with a finding that the dismissals were fair. No order as to costs was made.
Get your news on the go. Clickhere to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
