- The Labour Court has upheld a CCMA ruling that found an employee’s dismissal for unauthorised use of a company vehicle substantively unfair.
- The court emphasised that workplace rules must be clear and consistently applied, not only written down.
- The judgment provides important guidance on how trust, misconduct, and fairness are assessed in dismissal disputes.
Many South African workplaces have rules that exist neatly in disciplinary codes but operate very differently in daily practice. In this judgment, the Labour Court explains why that gap is significant, particularly when an employer relies on misconduct to justify dismissal.
In Europcar South Africa Division of Motors Group Limited v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others, Acting Judge S Rajah was asked to decide whether a CCMA commissioner had acted unreasonably in finding that an employee’s dismissal was substantively unfair.
The court’s answer was no. In doing so, it offered an important lesson on how fairness is assessed when employees are disciplined for breaching workplace rules.
The facts behind the dispute
Europcar operates a vehicle rental business. Its vehicles are central to how it earns income, and the company argued that any unauthorised personal use of a vehicle is a serious offence.
The employee, Pumeza Glenn Poswa, had worked for the company since 2010. Over the years, he progressed to a supervisory position. During the COVID-19 period, he accepted alternative employment as a rental agent to avoid possible retrenchment.
On 10 June 2021, Poswa used a company vehicle for personal purposes without first obtaining permission from his manager. He was charged with misconduct and dismissed after an internal disciplinary hearing.
At the CCMA, the commissioner accepted that the employee had indeed used the vehicle without authorisation. However, the commissioner found that dismissal was too harsh and ruled that it was substantively unfair. Europcar then approached the Labour Court to have that decision reviewed and set aside.
What the employer argued
Before the Labour Court, Europcar advanced a firm position. It argued that its vehicles were revenue generating assets and that unauthorised use undermined trust in the employment relationship.
The employer insisted that the rule prohibiting personal use was clear, important, and consistently applied. It also argued that unauthorised use of company property was closely linked to dishonesty and should ordinarily result in dismissal.
According to the company, the commissioner had downplayed the seriousness of the misconduct and placed too much weight on the employee’s clean disciplinary record.
What the court focused on instead
Judge Rajah began by reaffirming the correct legal test. A review court does not decide whether it would have reached the same conclusion as the commissioner. The question is whether the commissioner’s decision is one that a reasonable decision-maker could reach on the evidence.
The judge accepted that the rule limiting vehicle use was important, given the nature of Europcar’s business. However, importance alone was not enough.
The court examined how the rule operated in reality. While it existed in writing, the evidence showed that employees were sometimes allowed to use vehicles under certain conditions and that these boundaries were not always clearly enforced.
As the judge explained, although the rule existed on paper, “the evidence suggests that, in practice, the line between permitted and prohibited use had become blurred by the conduct of both employer and employee”. This blurring made it difficult to say that the employee’s conduct clearly crossed an unmistakable line.
Trust, fairness, and dismissal
A key issue in misconduct cases is whether the employment relationship has become intolerable. Employers often argue that trust has broken down and that dismissal is therefore justified.
In this case, the commissioner had found that the employee’s conduct did not render the relationship intolerable. Acting Judge Rajah agreed that this was a reasonable conclusion.
The judge noted the employee’s long service, his previously unblemished disciplinary record, and the broader context in which the vehicle was used. These factors mattered when deciding whether dismissal was a fair response.
Importantly, the court rejected the idea that every breach of a rule automatically destroys trust. Fairness requires a balanced assessment of the rule, the conduct, and the workplace context.
Why the review application failed
After considering all the arguments, the Labour Court concluded that the commissioner had applied his mind properly and had not ignored material evidence. The judge held that the finding of substantive unfairness fell well within the range of reasonable outcomes.
“The commissioner’s finding, namely that the dismissal was substantively unfair, is reasonable and justified on the evidence properly before him,” Judge Rajah said.
As a result, Europcar’s review application was dismissed, the CCMA award remained in place, and no costs order was made.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
