Latest news with #JohannesburgLabourCourt
IOL News
7 days ago
- Business
- IOL News
Forklift driver challenges dismissal after positive alcohol test from cough mixture
The Labour Court confirmed that a forklift driver who tested positive for alcohol due to a cough mixture should not be fired. Image: File A sip of cough mixture the previous evening and two spoons of the same mixture on the morning before he went to work, was the subject of a prolonged legal wrangle between a forklift driver and his company, after he was at first fired for testing positive for alcohol consumption. The worker, only identified as Mr Tsamse by the Johannesburg Labour Court, was fired by Chill Beverages International, which has a zero tolerance for alcohol intake while at work. The CCMA subsequently overturned his dismissal, but the beverages company now turned to the Labour Court to review the CCMA's finding. Tsamse was employed by the company in June 2017 and served as a warehouse controller at the time of his dismissal for alleged gross misconduct after failing a breathalyser test. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Next Stay Close ✕ The beverage company manufactures and distributes various beverages, some containing alcohol. As a forklift driver, Tsamse had to transport raw materials, including bags weighing up to one ton of sugar or containers of up to 1,000 litres of liquid ingredients. The company argued that its zero tolerance policy prohibits employees from having any intoxicating substances in their bloodstream during working hours, and they are forbidden from using any alcohol during work or within six hours before the start of their shift. It said higher levels of alcohol would automatically lead to a disciplinary hearing and possible dismissal. On the day in question, Tsamse was an hour late for work and, as usual, he was subjected to a breathalyser test when he entered the factory. He tested positive and had to undergo the test several times. The company also used different devices to ensure that the initial device was not faulty. Tsamse was required to wait in the canteen, where he could eat and drink before being re-tested. He was tested again and failed once more. He submitted that he had used medication and was unaware that it contained alcohol. The CCMA commissioner who initially overturned his dismissal noted that he did not smell of alcohol and displayed no visible signs of being intoxicated. It was also noted that he was a first offender with six years of service at the time of his dismissal. Tsamse maintained that he did not consume any alcohol the day before his shift or on the morning of his shift. He was unwell the day before and had obtained a cough mixture from a neighbour. He took some cough mixture in the evening before his shift and two teaspoons of the same mixture before walking to work on the morning of his shift. He explained that he was unaware that the cough mixture contained any alcohol, as he did not read the label. Thus, he said, he had unknowingly contravened his employer's no substance policy. A manager at the company explained that an employee working on machinery while under the influence posed a serious occupational and health risk, thus the zero-tolerance approach. The commissioner, in earlier overturning Tsamse's dismissal, found no evidence to suggest that he had consumed alcohol the evening before or on the morning of his shift. He also agreed that Tsamse was not intoxicated and showed no signs of drunkenness. In asking for this ruling to be overturned, the company questioned the conclusion that Tsamse was negligent for not reading the label on the medicine bottle, but that the policy had not been breached. The Labour Court, however, turned down the review and found that the commissioner's findings were reasonable under the circumstances.
IOL News
24-06-2025
- IOL News
Mining operator fired for vulgar language during safety meeting
The Labour Court has determined that the foul language used by a mining operator during a safety meeting, warranted him being fired. Image: File Vulgar language used by a mining operator during a "Brother's Keeper' safety meeting towards a female colleague had cost him dearly when he was fired, and that ruling was now endorsed by the Johannesburg Labour Court. Siyabonga Buthelezi turned to the court in a bid to get his job back, as he said being fired was too harsh under the circumstances. Buthelezi had told the female employee during the meeting that she was talking 'f…s…'. This took place in front of a number of other employees from other departments and sub-contractors. Buthelezi worked for AEL Mining Services at the time and was an operator in the bagging department. The workplace safety awareness training was presented by a safety practitioner, only identified as Ms Z Mmboneni. A PowerPoint presentation was displayed, and Mmboneni explained it, after which questions were invited from attendees about the issues raised in the presentation. However, some employees from the bagging department began raising questions concerning plant issues, which were not related to the presentation. Mmboneni responded by saying the meeting was not the right forum to address those issues and asked them to curtail these questions. The meeting turned volatile, and some workers left. Buthelezi raised the need for a separate gathering room so that they could discuss these issues. Mmboneni suggested that the issues should be discussed during a plant meeting. According to Mmboneni, Buthelezi started raising his voice, and she reiterated it was not the forum to discuss issues not pertaining to the safety meeting. It was at that point that Buthelezi said what she was saying was 'f…s...' while looking directly at her. She said a shop steward then rebuked Buthelezi and told him to apologise to her, which he did not do. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Mmboneni said she believed that if the shop steward had not intervened, he would have continued to insult her. She recalled someone else who tried to stop him using vulgar language but could not identify the person. According to her, there was a reaction from the meeting when Buthelezi uttered the objectionable words. She testified that she had felt embarrassed by being threatened and insulted in front of employees and contractors at the meeting. The bagging shed manager, who was an attendee at the meeting, gave a similar version of the events to that given by Mmboneni. Buthelezi denied being angry or raising his voice, but he agreed that Mmboneni was not responding to the questions raised. He wanted to say the showers at the plant where they were working were 'f…dirty' but decided not to finish what he was going to say because he realised he might have been perceived as rude when he used the swear word 'f…'. He disputed that anyone had tried to close his mouth or that the shop steward had apologised on his behalf. Following an internal hearing, Buthelezi was fired for using vulgar language. His dismissal was confirmed during arbitration proceedings. It was not disputed that on either version, Buthelezi's use of vulgar language was unacceptable.
The Citizen
01-05-2025
- The Citizen
Legal Practice Council administrator accused of corruption loses Labour Court bid
Judge says disciplinary hearing against Zandile Madonsela, accused of colluding with attorneys, can go ahead An employee of the Legal Practice Council (LPC), accused of being involved in an 'elaborate and corrupt scheme' with attorneys, has failed in her bid to stop disciplinary proceedings against her. Johannesburg Labour Court Judge Edwin Tlhotlhalemaje, in a recent ruling, said it was clear that Zandile Madonsela was doing everything possible to frustrate the disciplinary process. She is accused of working with attorneys to falsify their audits and provide them with Fidelity Fund certificates and Certificates of Good Standing. Judge Tlhotlhalemaje said courts could only intervene in incomplete disciplinary proceedings in the most exceptional cases and dismissed her urgent application, ordering Madonsela to pay the LPC's costs. ALSO READ: Lawyers who steal: R1.4bn trust fund theft ignored Madonsela had been employed by the LPC in its Gauteng offices as an administrator in the Risk and Assessment Department since 2019. After receiving an anonymous tip-off, the LPC began an internal investigation which resulted in disciplinary proceedings against Madonsela and others who were accused of colluding with attorneys and taking money in exchange for falsifying audits and issuing the certificates. Madonsela was charged with fraud and falsifying documents used in the 'corrupt scheme' with attorneys. Before pleading to the charges, Madonsela launched urgent court proceedings seeking to have the disciplinary proceedings declared unlawful and a breach of her employment contract. She also argued that the LPC was in breach of a settlement agreement in terms of which it had been agreed that the disciplinary process against her would be terminated in exchange for her providing information to assist with the ongoing investigation. ALSO READ: 'They should be embarrassed': Mpofu slams charges as disciplinary hearing postponed Referring to the history of the matter, Judge Tlhotlhalemaje said the disciplinary hearing had been stalled several times with Madonsela's legal representatives demanding to see further documents, and then a claim that she was sick. Her legal representatives then told the LPC that she had evidence that implicated other employees involved in the scheme. The LPC said if she provided credible information, not already within the LPC's possession or knowledge, the disciplinary hearing would still proceed against her but should she be found guilty, the LPC would ask for a lesser sanction than dismissal. Judge Tlhotlhalemaje said it was not disputed that even though Madonsela had been suspended, she had been granted access to her office and her computer and emails to print the information she had promised. However, according to the LPC, this information was of no value to its investigation and Madonsela was informed that the hearing would proceed in early April 2025. In response, Madonsela's legal representatives then cast aspersions on the impartiality of the chairperson and said the hearing should be permanently stayed. When the LPC refused this request, she launched the urgent application in the labour court. Judge Tlhotlhalemaje agreed with the LPC that the urgency was self-created and she had only approached the court 'when the penny dropped' that the disciplinary hearing was going to proceed. He said in light of this, he could strike the matter off the roll. However, he felt compelled to 'dispose of it finally', to prevent it being re-enrolled on the ordinary roll, unnecessarily. He said an 'extremely high threshold' had been set for a court's intervention in ongoing disciplinary hearings. Read the judgment here. 'The rationale behind this stringent approach is that the court should respect employers' prerogative to institute disciplinary proceedings and should be wary of unwarranted intrusion. 'It has been repeatedly stated that this court should not be regarded as the first port of call and the court must equally guard against the abuse of its own processes by employees whose primary objectives are not noble but merely intended to frustrate internal disciplinary processes in order to escape from having to answer to allegations of serious misconduct,' Judge Tlhotlhalemaje said. He said the grounds raised by Madonsela were not exceptional and were 'utter red herrings'. ALSO READ: More than 100 legal practitioners struck off the roll He said the suggestion that the LPC was in breach of a settlement agreement was 'ludicrous'. The LPC director had refused to sanction the agreement because the information Madonsela had provided was of no value. 'The idea that there was an intention to terminate the disciplinary hearing is a figment of (Madonsela's) imagination. The proceedings were merely suspended.' Judge Tlhotlhalemaje said Madonsela did not have a right not to be subjected to an internal disciplinary hearing, especially given the gravity of the allegations against her and the implications, to the extent that the charges are proven, for the integrity and reputation of the LPC and the legal profession. Regarding the issue of costs, the judge said while Madonsela claimed to be 'a simple administrator', she had been legally assisted from the start by a team including a senior counsel, which pointed to the fact that she could afford to pay costs. 'The fact remains that this application, which was brought on an extremely urgent basis, was ill-considered and misconceived, causing the LPC costs and inconvenience,' he said, dismissing the urgent application with costs. This article was republished from GroundUp under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article here. NOW READ: Police can't say why they let an alleged rapist off the hook
