- Labour Court finds Mpact failed to prove theft or dishonesty after allowing the employee to leave with the disputed toilet roll.
- The court criticises the employer’s investigation, stating that key evidence was lost from the very start of the case.
- Employee reinstated with 10 months’ back pay after dismissal ruled substantively unfair.
Brian Theodore April, an Mpact Operations employee since 2009, was stopped and searched by security at the company gate after his shift on 21 October 2022. Security officers found a roll of toilet paper in his bag, triggering a disciplinary process that ultimately led to his dismissal.
Mpact accused April of stealing company property and acting dishonestly by removing it without authorisation. April denied theft, insisting the toilet paper was his personal property brought from home. Despite the accusation, security allowed him to repack the roll and leave the premises. There was no confiscation, no comparison, and no documentation. The roll was left with April.
Weeks later, Mpact dismissed April. He challenged the dismissal at arbitration, where it was found to be unfair. The arbitrator ordered reinstatement and back pay. Mpact then took the matter to the Labour Court in Cape Town, seeking to have the arbitration award overturned.
Evidence was lost before the case even began
In a judgment delivered on 15 January 2026, Acting Judge M Mkhatshwa found that Mpact’s case had been undermined by its own flawed investigation and failure to secure crucial physical evidence.
“The photographs of the suspected stolen roll, together with a photograph of the Applicant’s toilet roll, would have almost invariably proven the guilt or otherwise of the Third Respondent,” the judge observed. This, however, was never done.
The only photographs produced were unclear or taken much later, well after the incident occurred. This rendered them useless as evidence of what transpired on the day April was searched.
More damaging to Mpact’s case was the decision to let April leave with the roll. “It is simply unbelievable that the Third Respondent was then allowed to place the suspected stolen roll back in his bag and leave with it,” the judge remarked. “The real and best evidence was lost by the Applicant at this juncture.”
A fundamentally compromised investigation
Mpact claimed the roll was not confiscated because the security office was busy at the time. The court dismissed this, noting that senior managers, including security and safety personnel, had been called specifically to deal with April.
“This is just unfathomable,” the judge said. The failure to act decisively meant the investigation was “heavily compromised” from the outset. “The Applicant’s case collapsed at its inception,” Mkhatshwa concluded. He highlighted that Mpact had two opportunities to preserve the evidence and failed both times.
No breach of workplace rules proven
Referring to Schedule 8 of the Labour Relations Act, the court emphasised that the first question in any misconduct dismissal is whether the employee actually contravened a workplace rule. Here, the answer was no.
“In light of the manner in which the investigation of the alleged offence was handled, there is only one conclusion that can be reached,” the judge said. “And that is that the Third Respondent did not contravene a rule or standard regulating conduct in, or of relevance to, the workplace.”
The court reaffirmed that theft requires intent. Where an employee genuinely believes they are authorised to possess an item, the mental element required for theft is absent. Mpact, the court found, failed to prove otherwise.
Once the arbitrator found that Mpact had not discharged the onus of proof, the Labour Court held that there was no basis to interfere with the award. “The Second Respondent decided that a reasonable arbitrator would have reached,” Mkhatshwa said.
Reinstatement confirmed
Mpact’s challenge to the reinstatement and back pay was also dismissed. The court clarified that the reference to twelve months’ back pay was a typographical error and confirmed that the arbitrator had correctly limited compensation to ten months.
April was ordered reinstated, with Mpact directed to pay R120,000 in back pay and allow him to return to work in February 2026.
The judgment stands as a warning to employers. Allegations of dishonesty must be supported by competent investigations and preserved evidence. Without that, even serious accusations cannot justify dismissal.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
