Labour Court backs Transnet in disciplinary showdown over fired employees
The Labour Court has sided with Transnet in a heated dispute over insubordination and insolence.
Image: File
The Labour Court has sided with Transnet in a heated dispute over insubordination and insolence, overturning a commissioner’s order that two dismissed employees be reinstated with 18 months’ back pay.
The case centred on two Transnet workers - a senior technical employee and a stock controller - who were fired after sending what management described as “threatening, intimidating, undermining and defamatory” emails to senior managers.
The pair claimed they were acting on behalf of members of the National Transport Movement, a union not recognised by Transnet.
This labour body was founded in 2012 after splitting from the South African Transport and Allied Workers Union
The commissioner had earlier ruled that the dismissals were both procedurally and substantively unfair, saying the workers were denied representation, that the charges were vague, and that their medical certificates explaining their absence from the disciplinary hearing were ignored.
However, Acting Judge Schensema found that the commissioner had “failed to properly consider the true nature of the matter before her, together with the evidence”.
The court said the commissioner “focused her attention on why the emails had been sent and not the contents of the emails and the impact these emails had on the recipients.”
Schensema said the employees “deliberately chose to raise the issues in the emails to senior management, individuals to whom they did not report, and disregarded the obvious remedies available to both themselves and the aggrieved employees.”
The former employees’ conduct, Schensema, added “cannot be justified merely because they purported to act on behalf of the aggrieved employees.”
Transnet had argued that the employees’ emails amounted to gross misconduct, including insubordination, insolence, intimidation and defamation.
It said the workers could have followed the company’s grievance procedure instead of launching an email attack on management.
The court agreed, ruling that the commissioner had “misconstrued the true nature of the dispute before her” and that her award was one “no reasonable decision-maker could have reached on the evidence before her.”
The arbitration award was set aside, and the dismissals were found to be both procedurally and substantively fair.
No order as to costs was made.
IOL Business