Yoliswa Maluleke, a Pick n Pay employee fired over a box of chocolates, will not be getting her job back.
This after the labour court of appeal last week ruled that despite her 24 years of unblemished service, her dismissal should stand.
In 2014, Maluleke was given a box of chocolates by a long-standing customer and made the ill-fated decision to process a refund, her intention being to use the money to purchase tissues.
But the court found she flouted store policy and, despite her squeaky-clean record, could not factor this into the application of the law.
Maluleke’s quest to be reinstated has stretched over six years, pitting her against her erstwhile employer at the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) and in the labour court.
The court heard that Maluleke and another employee had been given the chocolates as a gift. Thereafter she processed refunds without the authorisation of her manager.
She had, according to court documents, listed the other employee as a customer.
When she belatedly attempted to have her manager sign off on the refund, he raised the alarm.
“He [the manager] refused to authorise the transaction because the refund was done contrary to the policy,” judge Violet Phatshoane ruled.
“The items were not purchased by the two employees, but by a Pick n Pay customer, which precluded them from returning the articles.”
In a tough spot, Maluleke cancelled the refund slip and rang up the chocolates again, thereby reversing the transaction, a move Pick n Pay held was an effort to cover up her misdeeds.
“To do this, she used the password of another cashier, which is also prohibited in terms of Pick n Pay policies,” Phatshoane found.
After disciplinary action she was fired and took her fight to the CCMA, where the arbitrator sided with the retailer.
She fared better in the labour court later that year, with judge David Gush holding the view that her record of service should have been a mitigating circumstance.
“The court found that no attempt had been made during the disciplinary hearing and the arbitration to consider Maluleke’s personal circumstances, her length of service and untarnished record.”
Gush found that the misconduct Maluleke had been charged with did not imply she was dishonest and kicked the case back to the CCMA for a fresh hearing.
But Pick n Pay put paid to that, taking his judgment on appeal.
Phatshoane found Maluleke had been dishonest and that with all her years of service, and in a position where she trained other tellers, she ought to have known better.
“Maluleke was no ordinary employee. She admitted that she was entrusted with the responsibility to train other cashiers on the very policies and procedures which she not only acted in flagrant disregard of, but flouted,” she ruled.
“[Her] 24 years of service, albeit a weighty factor, must be assessed with other factors. The acts of misconduct committed in this case were of a serious nature.
“The dishonest acts destroyed the relationship of trust.
“What makes Maluleke’s transgressions even more unpardonable is her failure to show some contrition,” Phatshoane said.