Employee Reinstated and Awarded R120,000 for Unfair Dismissal Over Toilet Roll

In an unusual case that has raised eyebrows, a worker dismissed from the JSE-listed packaging company Mpact has been awarded R120,000 in back pay and reinstated after being fired for allegedly stealing a single roll of toilet paper.

The incident dates back to October 2022 when Theodore April, who had worked at Mpact for 13 years, left work after his shift. Following a tip-off, security personnel searched his bag and found a roll of toilet paper. April maintained that the roll was his, having brought it from home. However, the company claimed that the toilet paper it used was distinctive and unavailable in retail stores.

Despite finding the roll during the search, security allowed April to put it back in his bag and leave the premises. This crucial detail led to questions about the validity of Mpact's case against him. At an internal disciplinary hearing, he was dismissed for dishonesty and “theft or unauthorised possession of company property.” The company argued that the roll was indeed the same brand as theirs.

In a startling turn of events, an arbitrator later dismissed Mpact’s findings, ordering April's reinstatement and awarding him back pay. However, Mpact sought a review of the arbitrator's decision in the Cape Town Labour Court, stating that the arbitrator had wrongly dismissed its evidence and underestimated the seriousness of the alleged offence while focusing on the insignificance of the toilet roll's value.

Judge M Mkhatshwa of the Labour Court dismissed Mpact's review application, concluding that April's dismissal was substantively unfair. “It is simply unbelievable that [the employee] was then allowed to place the suspected stolen roll, which, according to his version, he had brought from home, back in his bag […] and he was allowed to leave with it. This is captured on video, and this evidence is common cause,” said Mkhatshwa.

The judge expressed disbelief over the statement made by Mpact’s safety and security manager. The manager testified that he did not notice when April placed the roll back in his bag since the security office was reportedly very busy at the time. Judge Mkhatshwa described this explanation as “incredible,” adding that it raised serious concerns about the competence of the security team on duty.

Critically, the judge noted that security personnel had failed to take photographs comparing the roll found in April’s bag with the rolls used by the company. “At this point, things start taking a rather bizarre turn,” the judge remarked, highlighting the lack of thoroughness in the investigation. He stressed that the absence of these comparative photographs meant that the case was fundamentally flawed from the outset.

“The photographs of the suspected stolen roll, together with a photograph of the applicant’s toilet roll, would have almost invariably proven the guilt or otherwise of the [respondent],” Mkhatshwa stated. Given that April was permitted to leave with the toilet roll, the judge argued that he had effectively been granted permission to take it.

“The [respondent] was not stealing the roll; implicitly, he had permission to leave with the roll because, once again, all those present did not deem it necessary to confiscate the ‘exhibit’,” added Mkhatshwa, challenging the company's narrative.

Furthermore, the judge pointed out that there were at least three security personnel present during the incident. “Their collective skill set ought to have enabled them to deal with the scene more professionally and effectively than they did. They failed in the execution of their duties,” he concluded.

This ruling underscores the importance of procedural fairness in employment matters, especially regarding dismissals based on alleged theft. The case not only highlights the absurdity of firing an employee over a seemingly trivial matter but also raises questions about the diligence required in internal investigations.

As April prepares to return to his position at Mpact, the case serves as a notable example of the necessity for companies to adhere to appropriate investigative procedures and protect the rights of their employees.

Follow Us on Twitter