A human resources practitioner at Samancor Chrome Limited has been reinstated with substantial compensation after the Labour Court in Johannesburg found her dismissal both substantively and procedurally unfair.
In the ruling, Acting Judge H Molotsi ordered reinstatement alongside compensation of R378,749.99. Portia Mokoena, employed by Samancor Chrome Limited since 1 April 2015, worked alongside Sydney Shabangu, a human resources intern.
On 17 May 2019, she informed Shabangu that she would need assistance with tasks as she had been absent due to her child’s illness. Given her previous absences for similar reasons, Shabangu enquired about her child’s condition, attempting to determine the severity of the illness.
Expressing discomfort with the question, Mokoena received an apology from Shabangu. Subsequently, she lodged a grievance against him, alleging he was “mocking me by intervening in my personal family life which is confidential.”
A grievance hearing was scheduled for 23 May 2019. On 22 May 2019, Mokoena approached two contract cleaners, Sarah Mahlangu and Sibongile Hamule. She requested their testimony regarding Shabangu’s alleged screaming during their exchange and offered to prepare their statements, promising compensation for their testimony. Neither cleaner had witnessed the original incident. Hamule reported the conversation to another human resources practitioner Butshe Makena.
The company launched an investigation and charged Mokoena with “an act of dishonesty.” The disciplinary process experienced multiple postponements. The initial hearing was set for 30 May 2019, but Mokoena was absent due to her child’s illness. Further dates of 24 July, 6 August, and 12 August 2019 were postponed due to Mokoena’s illness. Additional hearings scheduled for 9 and 12 December 2019 were postponed due to her child’s illness. Finally, on 14 January 2020, the hearing proceeded in Mokoena’s absence.
The commissioner reviewing the case found significant contradictions in Mahlangu and Hamule’s statements, and the employer’s finding of guilt based on their evidence was deemed irrational. Additionally, the company was found to have failed to properly apply its policy on poor attendance, and the disciplinary process was procedurally flawed.
#ConvictionÂ
