A Cape Town police sergeant, Noreen Bam, lost her appeal to the Labour Court after her dismissal for shoplifting was upheld. The dismissal stemmed from an incident in 2014 when Bam was caught stealing items from Checkers Hyper. At the time of the incident, she was stationed at Mowbray police station.
Bam’s dismissal followed a disciplinary hearing that found she had taken items from the store without paying, failing to act in a manner that upheld the interests of her employer. Additionally, the hearing revealed that she had provided false identification when confronted by security. Despite these findings, Bam appealed her dismissal, arguing that the evidence was insufficient and that her legal representative had failed to cross-examine key witnesses properly.
The incident unfolded when Bam and her mother went shopping at Checkers. A store security officer testified that they loaded items into a trolley, which were later concealed in two bags — a black-and-white bag and a baby bag. At the checkout, they only paid for a few items, and as they were about to leave, the store’s alarm system was triggered by unscanned tags attached to meat packets in their bags. The security officer then discovered unpaid items in their bags and detained the pair for questioning.
Bam allegedly misidentified herself as “Suzette Karelse,” a name she claimed was used due to her singing abilities in her youth. However, the security officer maintained that this name was given by Bam, not her mother as she later suggested. The confusion surrounding this false identity played a significant role in the disciplinary proceedings.
During her testimony, Bam claimed she was unaware of her mother’s purchase of the stolen meat. She explained that while she was changing her baby’s nappy in the car, a man had approached her mother and sold her the items. She further denied having any knowledge of the theft until the alarm was triggered. However, the evidence provided by the security officer and the arresting officer contradicted Bam’s story, leading to the conclusion that she had been dishonest.
Bam’s mother also took the stand, claiming that she had bought the meat from a stranger for R50, without realizing it was stolen. She insisted that neither she nor her daughter had stolen anything from Checkers. However, the tribunal found her testimony to be inconsistent and not credible.
The arbitrator who initially ruled on the case sided with Checkers, dismissing the defense of both Bam and her mother. In his judgment, he noted that their version of events was “simply denial” without any substantial evidence to back up their claims. Furthermore, Bam’s argument that her legal team had failed to properly cross-examine witnesses was also rejected by the arbitrator, who emphasized that an oversight by her attorney could not be grounds for overturning the decision.
Judge Robert Lagrange, who ruled on the appeal, found that the arbitrator had acted reasonably in dismissing the case. He pointed out that Bam’s attempt to provide a false identity was clear, especially when she returned the stolen goods and wrote down the name “Suzette Karelse.” The judge also noted that the defense, which claimed it was Bam’s mother who had mistakenly provided the false name, lacked merit. The Court found no fault with the arbitrator’s assessment of the evidence and upheld the decision to dismiss Bam.
In the end, the Labour Court dismissed Bam’s appeal, emphasizing that her defense was based on inconsistencies and unsupported claims. With no costs awarded against her, Bam’s bid to reverse her dismissal was officially rejected.
