NAME
MODULE CODE
STUDENT NUMBER
Summary
Ms Fundiswa Mlotha (Mlotha) was before her dismissal, employed by Woolworths as
a Human Resources Store Administrator at the Paddocks branch in Milnerton. On 29
July 2016 Mlotha allegedly breached Woolworths’ policy on honesty when she had
set aside and/or reserved a full priced item (a pack of beef meat) under the false
pretense of a reservation on behalf of a customer, for the sole purpose of concealing
it from other potential customers and taking advantage of a reduced or discounted
price that was to take place at a later period during that day. Ms Fundiswa Mlotha
approached this Court for an order reviewing and setting aside the arbitration award
that the Commissioner had found that the dismissal of Mlotha by the third
respondent (Woolworths), was substantively fair. Woolworths has opposed the
review application.
Issue(s) in dispute in the case
Was the dismissal of Mlotha amounts to unfair dismissal?
Did Mlotha breach of company rules and policies?
The Court’s decision
The Commissioner having had regard to the misconduct in question as against the
rules and policies breached, also had regard to whether the sanction of dismissal
was appropriate in the circumstances. She placed emphasis on a trust relationship
between an employer and employee and pointed out that Mlotha knowingly took the
risks to her detriment with her conduct. She also had regard to Mlotha’s failure to
take responsibility for her actions or to show some form of contrition. In these
circumstances, I fail to appreciate the reason that it can be said that the
Commissioner’s award is reviewable, where a senior employee, knowingly breached
company rules related to honesty and integrity, failed to show any form of contrition,
and still pleaded victimhood. Flowing from Mlotha’s own conduct, that was sufficient
for a conclusion to be made that the trust relationship could not be restored. There
MODULE CODE
STUDENT NUMBER
Summary
Ms Fundiswa Mlotha (Mlotha) was before her dismissal, employed by Woolworths as
a Human Resources Store Administrator at the Paddocks branch in Milnerton. On 29
July 2016 Mlotha allegedly breached Woolworths’ policy on honesty when she had
set aside and/or reserved a full priced item (a pack of beef meat) under the false
pretense of a reservation on behalf of a customer, for the sole purpose of concealing
it from other potential customers and taking advantage of a reduced or discounted
price that was to take place at a later period during that day. Ms Fundiswa Mlotha
approached this Court for an order reviewing and setting aside the arbitration award
that the Commissioner had found that the dismissal of Mlotha by the third
respondent (Woolworths), was substantively fair. Woolworths has opposed the
review application.
Issue(s) in dispute in the case
Was the dismissal of Mlotha amounts to unfair dismissal?
Did Mlotha breach of company rules and policies?
The Court’s decision
The Commissioner having had regard to the misconduct in question as against the
rules and policies breached, also had regard to whether the sanction of dismissal
was appropriate in the circumstances. She placed emphasis on a trust relationship
between an employer and employee and pointed out that Mlotha knowingly took the
risks to her detriment with her conduct. She also had regard to Mlotha’s failure to
take responsibility for her actions or to show some form of contrition. In these
circumstances, I fail to appreciate the reason that it can be said that the
Commissioner’s award is reviewable, where a senior employee, knowingly breached
company rules related to honesty and integrity, failed to show any form of contrition,
and still pleaded victimhood. Flowing from Mlotha’s own conduct, that was sufficient
for a conclusion to be made that the trust relationship could not be restored. There
