Labour Court upholds dismissal of Cape Town metro cop after losing service pistol during taxi strike
The Labour Court has dismissed an application by a former City of Cape Town law enforcement officer who sought to overturn her dismissal after losing her service firearm, ammunition and magazines during a period of intense overtime work.
In a recent judgment, Judge Robert Lagrange ruled that although procedural missteps justified reinstating and considering the review application, the former officer ultimately failed to show that her dismissal was unfair.
The applicant, Venus Bianca Jansen, was employed in the City’s Safety and Security Directorate. During March 2023, while working unusually long hours amid a taxi strike, she lost her firearm, 34 rounds of ammunition and two magazines. She only reported the loss several days later and was unable to explain where or how the items went missing.
Following disciplinary proceedings, Jansen was dismissed in October 2023 for failing to take proper care of employer property, not reporting the loss timeously to the police, and failing to store the firearm as prescribed. An internal appeal confirmed the dismissal in December 2023.
Jansen attempted to challenge the dismissal at the South African Local Government Bargaining Council but referred her unfair dismissal claim four days late. An arbitrator refused to grant condonation, finding that she and her legal adviser knowingly allowed the referral deadline to lapse. Jansen then took the matter on review to the Labour Court.
The case became mired in procedural difficulties, including delays in filing court records and confusion over notices from the registrar. The City of Cape Town argued that the review application should be deemed withdrawn because of these failures.
Judge Lagrange ruled that, despite Jansen’s attorneys’ lack of diligence, the review application should be reinstated and the late filing condoned, as the City had suffered no prejudice. However, the court went on to consider whether Jansen had any reasonable prospects of success.
Jansen argued that extreme fatigue from long working hours had diminished her mental capacity, contributing to the loss of the firearm. She contended that expert evidence could support this defence.
The court rejected this argument, noting that Jansen had never offered even a tentative explanation of how such a “bulky collection of items” could have gone missing. Judge Lagrange emphasised that the loss of a service firearm is an exceptionally serious form of misconduct, given the potential consequences if it falls into the wrong hands.
The court found that her reliance on alleged fatigue did not absolve her of responsibility, and that her defence had no reasonable prospect of success. As a result, the review application was dismissed.
While the court made no order as to costs, the ruling leaves Jansen’s dismissal intact, bringing an end to a dispute marked by both serious misconduct findings and prolonged procedural delays.
sinenhlanhla.masilela@iol.co.za
IOL News