- A law enforcement officer took sick leave before attending an unauthorised year-end staff function.
- Facebook photographs and workplace records became central to the disciplinary case.
- The Labour Court found dishonesty destroyed the trust relationship despite 12 years of clean service.
A festive-season celebration that was never supposed to happen became the centre of an important judgment about honesty in the workplace.
The Labour Court in Cape Town upheld the dismissal of City of Cape Town law enforcement officer May after finding he claimed illness to leave work early, then attended an unauthorised year-end staff function. Judge A Snyman said the case was ultimately about trust and whether a law enforcement officer had acted honestly while taking sick leave.
The banned celebration sparked the dispute
In December 2022, employees asked for permission to hold a year-end function. The City refused because operational visibility was needed during the festive season, and officers were told the gathering would not take place. Despite this, the celebration went ahead later that afternoon.
May had been booked off sick in the days leading up to the event. Nevertheless, he reported for duty on 15 December, then left work several hours before the end of his shift. He did not record a reason for leaving and only cited illness when questioned by managers the next day. He later produced a medical certificate covering the day.
Facebook photographs became crucial evidence
The disciplinary case took a turn when Facebook photographs surfaced showing May at the prohibited staff function with colleagues.
The City argued that its leave policy required employees on sick leave to conduct themselves in a way consistent with recovery. Unless medical treatment required otherwise, employees were expected to stay at home while recuperating.
Judge Snyman found that the undisputed facts established a clear case of dishonesty, which required a credible explanation from May.
“The duty then shifted squarely onto May to provide a reasonable and acceptable explanation for his behaviour to dispel this established case of misconduct,” Judge Snyman said.
The issue was honesty, not the time of the party
May denied acting dishonestly and said he attended the function only after receiving a late invitation from colleagues. He also argued the celebration took place after normal working hours.
The court rejected that defence, finding the real issue was not the timing of the function, but that May relied on illness while engaging in conduct inconsistent with recuperation. Judge Snyman said the arbitrator was entitled to consider the surrounding events, including May’s early departure from work and the Facebook photographs, when assessing the situation.
Although May had completed 12 years of service without previous misconduct, the court found that his position as a law enforcement officer required the highest standard of honesty.
“Long, clean service is insufficient given the seriousness of the misconduct and the breakdown of trust,” Judge Snyman said.
The court dismissed May’s review application and upheld his dismissal.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
