An employee at Gibela Rail Transport Consortium faced severe consequences for taking a company car home without authorisation, ultimately resulting in being hijacked.

William Dube, employed at the company since 2017, found himself at the centre of a legal battle after the hijacking incident.

On May 25, 2021, Dube, a warehouse supervisor, was authorised to use a company vehicle for training at Riverside Lake, near Nigel.

He said that on previous occasions he had inquired about the possibility of taking the vehicle home, but on this particular occasion, he hadn’t done that as he believed the training would finish early.

He had parked his personal car at work and after the training at approximately 5pm, he opted to drive home as it was late, and he was tired. Upon his arrival at his home in Soshanguve, Pretoria, he was accosted by two armed men at his front gate. They took the car and his cell phone. 

He walked to Soshanguve police station from his house and reported the incident. The vehicle had a tracking device and was recovered the following day. Despite the recovery of the car, he was dismissed for misconduct and providing misleading information about the time of a hijacking incident. 

Refusing to go down without a fight, he referred his dismissal to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA).

At the CCMA, the company said that he asserted he was hijacked at 7:20pm however, in his police statement, he indicated that the incident occurred at 8:43pm. Furthermore, he supplied varying details to the security company, claiming he was hijacked at 6pm.

The site manager testified that the car tracking report revealed that it remained stationary for roughly two minutes on the street where Dube resided at approximately 8pm. In contrast, a security incident report prepared by an external party noted that the incident occurred at around 6pm and he reported the incident to police at 8pm.

In his defence, Dube clarified that he was in a state of shock and that it required approximately 20 minutes to reach the police station from his residence. Upon arrival, he had to wait for his turn to be attended before he could provide his statement. At that moment, his phone had been taken, and he did not possess a watch.

Moreover, the arbitrator acknowledged Dube’s explanation regarding his failure to report the incident to the employer that same evening, specifically that all the contact information was stored on his phone, which had been stolen.

The arbitrator held that his dismissal was substantively unfair and ordered his reinstatement.

Dissatisfied with this conclusion, the rail company escalated the issue to the Labour Court in Johannesburg.

Among the various issues raised, the company contended that Dube held a managerial position, which necessitated a strong trust relationship. Furthermore, his actions adversely affected staff morale, ultimately undermining both the trust and working relationships irreparably.

Judge Robert Lagrange acknowledged the discrepancies in the evidence of the sequence of events that evening.

He said it was very improbable that Dube could have given the police officer the precise time as he had neither a watch nor phone.

Furthermore, he stated that none of the evidence presented by Dube indicates an effort to mislead and was consistent with his assertion that he was in a state of shock and unable to check his phone or watch at that moment. 

Judge Lagrange upheld Dube’s reinstatement; however, he said that he should be issued a final warning.

sinenhlanhla.masilela@iol.co.za

IOL News

Get your news on the go, click here to join the IOL News WhatsApp channel. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

sinenhlanhla.masilela@iol.co.za

IOL News

Get your news on the go, click here to join the IOL News WhatsApp channel. 

Source link