The issue of employees sleeping at work came to the forefront recently as two tactical officers from Bidvest Protea Coin, Sphamandla Mlungwana and Hans Moetlo, found themselves dismissed for falling asleep on the job. However, the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) ruled that their dismissal was unfair and ordered their reinstatement, citing inconsistent disciplinary practices by the company. In response, Bidvest took the matter to the Johannesburg Labour Court, hoping to overturn the CCMA’s decision.
The crux of the case was the claim that Mlungwana and Moetlo were unfairly treated compared to other employees who had also slept on the job but were not dismissed. The pair’s defense argued that, like their colleagues, they had not been warned about the consequences of sleeping while on duty, despite the fact that they were both dismissed after their first offense.
Bidvest, on the other hand, contended that the situation involving Mlungwana and Moetlo was different from the other instances. The company argued that the two officers did not simply fall asleep accidentally like others had. Instead, they intentionally left their posts at Eastgate Mall and drove to Bidvest’s Kelvin office, where they found a dark, secluded spot to sleep for approximately two hours.
The South African Transport and Allied Workers’ Union (SATAWU), representing Mlungwana and Moetlo, provided evidence in the form of eight examples where other employees had slept while on duty but received only final warnings, not termination. This highlighted the inconsistency in how discipline was applied, suggesting that the pair was unfairly singled out for dismissal.
Bidvest, however, stood firm on its position, presenting video footage to support its argument. The footage allegedly showed the circumstances surrounding Mlungwana and Moetlo’s actions, aiming to prove that their case was different from others who had slept on the job without facing the same level of discipline.
After reviewing the arguments, Acting Judge B Ramji found that the commissioner at the CCMA had not fully considered all the facts in the case. Specifically, the judge noted the importance of the video footage presented by Bidvest, which illustrated the specific circumstances of Mlungwana and Moetlo’s actions. As a result, the judge overturned the CCMA’s ruling and referred the matter back for reconsideration by a different commissioner, to ensure all relevant factors were properly taken into account.
This case has brought attention to the complexities of workplace discipline and the need for consistency when handling similar offenses. The court’s decision to review the matter reflects the importance of fairness and thorough examination in employment disputes. Mlungwana and Moetlo’s future remains uncertain as the case is sent back to the CCMA for further review.
