Labour Court reinstates employee dismissed for toilet paper theft

A worker caught with a roll of toilet paper allegedly belonging to his employer in his bag and subsequently fired received good news from the Labour Court when it not only confirmed that he must be reinstated, but he must be paid R120,000 in backpay.

The Labour Court in Cape Town turned down an application by Mpact Operations, where Theodore April worked as a winder operator since 2009 until he was fired, to review an arbitration ruling that he must be reinstated.

Acting Judge M Mkhatshwa ordered that apart from the backpay, which he must receive by the end of February, he must report for work on February 2.

April was fired after he was found guilty at an internal disciplinary hearing after security found a roll of toilet paper in his possession after his shift had ended. The toilet paper was said to be the same brand as what the company is using.

It was not disputed at the arbitration that a roll of toilet paper was found in April’s possession when security conducted a search. He denied that the roll belonged to the company and claimed that he carried it with him from home.

The company, in turn, argued at the arbitration that it received a tip-off that April was stealing company toilet paper. Acting on the tip-off, the security staff at the gate were instructed to carry out a search and found a roll that belonged to the company in April’s bag.

The company argued that its rule is that employees must declare items that they bring from home if they are the same/similar to items that are on the company’s premises.

The arbitrator, meanwhile, found that it was not proved that the roll was stolen and that his dismissal was unfair. She also remarked that if it was indeed stolen, being dismissed for this was a too harsh sanction.

According to the company, evidence revealed that its roll is unique and cannot be found in a retail store, as it is purchased from a supplier. April, meanwhile, came armed with his roll of toilet paper to the disciplinary hearing, but the company maintained it was not the same one he was caught with.

One of the company’s witnesses took pictures of the roll that April brought from home. But no pictures were taken of the alleged stolen roll. Judge Mkhatshwa noted that a picture of both toilet rolls and a comparison of the two rolls side by side would have gone a long way to support the version that the roll stolen was that of the company.

The judge also questioned why, after being caught by security allegedly with the offending roll in his bag, he was then allowed to place the suspected stolen roll back in his bag and leave with it.

The judge said the company’s case was botched from the moment of the investigation. “The photographs of the suspected stolen roll, together with a photograph of the Applicant’s (company) toilet roll, would have almost invariably proven the guilt or otherwise of the Third Respondent (April).”

The judge added that the fact that April was allowed to leave the premises with the “stolen toilet roll” proved that he did not steal it. “Implicitly, he had permission to leave with the roll because, once again, all those present did not deem it necessary to confiscate the ‘exhibit’.”

Judge Mkhatshwa said the company simply failed to prove that April had stolen a roll of their toilet paper.

zelda.venter@inl.co.za