Cape Town labour court reinstates driver sacked for negligence at African Bank

A driver fired for negligence after leaving company equipment in a vehicle with a leaking roof has won a labour court battle to be reinstated in his job with back pay at African Bank.

 The bank fired Alistair Steenkamp — who was initially employed as a customer relations consultant — in 2021 after charging him with negligence and the use of a company vehicle for private purposes.     

“During the period October 25 to 26 2019 you allegedly acted in a negligent manner when you left the company [audio] speakers, used for marketing, overnight in the vehicle when it was raining while you were aware of the leaking roof. The speakers were damaged due to your negligence,” read the charges.  

“On November 28 2019 you allegedly acted in a negligent manner by not keeping the company laptop safe while it was in your possession and you lost the laptop due to your negligence. On November 27 2020 you allegedly left the company cellphone in an unlocked vehicle without taking proper care, the cellphone was stolen, resulting in a loss of R3,899. 

“During the period January to December 2019 it is alleged that you parked the company bus at times at the residence of a relative without overnight authority. This is in breach of the bank’s rules and policy.”

Steenkamp, who was working as a driver when he was fired, pleaded guilty to the first charge and was found guilty on it by the chairperson of a disciplinary hearing. He had been working for the bank since 2018.  

Steenkamp took the matter to the CCMA but the arbitrator found he “was indeed negligent when the speakers were damaged and when the laptop and cellphone were stolen”. 

“Evidence was tendered that the incidents of negligence did not take place at the same time, with the first incident taking place on November 25 and 26 2019, the incident of the stolen laptop taking place on November 28 2019,” the CCMA arbitrator said.   

“The cellphone stolen on November 27 2020. [Steenkamp] argued dismissal was inappropriate as a first offence. It was submitted that [he] pleaded guilty and showed remorse. Schedule 8 of the good practice dismissal provides for progressive discipline, where there exists a good possibility of rehabilitation of the employee.  

“[Steenkamp] may not have had other warnings for similar conduct. However, [he] in three separate incidents acted in a negligent manner failing to safeguard the equipment entrusted to him. It may have been the first disciplinary process he was subjected to, but this does not diminish that he was negligent on three separate occasions and failed to learn from earlier incidences of negligence which led to damage to or loss of the employer’s property.

“A period of about 11 months elapsed between the laptop and cellphone going missing from the vehicle, which indicates [Steenkamp] failed to take the necessary precautions to care for the respondent's property and no rehabilitation is evident. Taking into consideration the evidence I cannot find the chairperson’s considerations were unreasonable and find the dismissal was fair in the circumstances,” the arbitrator said.

Steenkamp took the ruling to the labour court in Cape Town to have it reviewed and set aside. He told the court he reported the laptop theft to the police immediately and the bank knew this. He also took issue with the bank's delay in taking disciplinary action against him.

According to the judgment, the bank testified about the investigation, saying the investigator fell ill and was hospitalised, but failed to provide proof to that effect or to call the investigator, and his absence was not explained.  

The bank was asked to explain why Steenkamp was dismissed for negligence resulting from different incidents spread over 13 months.  

“Under the circumstances, it is the court's finding that the commissioner failed to consider the delay which is in contravention of the [bank's] disciplinary code to institute disciplinary action within a reasonable time, while the [bank] relied on all three incidents of negligence to justify the decision to dismiss [Steenkamp],” reads the judgment handed down by the labour court at the end of May.  

The court considered that Steenkamp pleaded guilty and did not waste the bank's time.  

“[He] even signed a salary deduction form as per the policy to pay the cellphone back. In evidence he testified that if he was given the opportunity to reimburse the laptop and the speakers he would have done so,” the judgment reads. 

“In all the circumstances I am persuaded that the commissioner’s award is not one that can be reached by a reasonable decisionmaker and progressive discipline should have prevailed. As a result the award stands to be reviewed and set aside.” 

The court ordered that Steenkamp be “reinstated from the date of this order and be given a final written warning” and be paid “six months remuneration as back pay”. 

TimesLIVE