A security guard was dismissed for failing to patrol every hour, as stipulated on his employment contract
By Mapaballo Borotho
On an interesting Legal Matters segment on the Point of View with Phemelo Motene, legal expert Nthabiseng Dubazane reminded people to always read any contract that binds them, whether it is an employment or lease agreement – you have been advised to read it thoroughly.
This follows a case involving a security guard who was dismissed for failing to patrol throughout the night. He later took the matter to the CCMA, where the commissioner initially ruled in his favour and ordered his reinstatement.
Dubazane explained that it is important to understand the terms and conditions whenever you sign a contract. In this case, the security guard was employed to patrol the premises, and his contract required him to patrol every hour.
He signed the contract, meaning he agreed to these terms. However, he failed to stick to the requirements. CCTV footage showed that he was not patrolling as stipulated, and he was issued with a warning.
He continued to disregard the terms and conditions of the contract and was given a final written warning, which ultimately led to his dismissal.
“One of the issues that contributed to his dismissal was that he was responsible for a dog that bit a co-worker. This incident occurred after the warnings had already been issued.
Because he failed to adhere to what the contract stipulated, this incident happened. Had he been on patrol, perhaps the dog would not have injured anyone,” Dubazane added.
Despite the warnings and the incidents, the security guard approached the CCMA, claiming he had been unfairly dismissed.
When the commissioner reviewed the case, he agreed with the security guard and ruled that the dismissal was unreasonable. The commissioner stated that patrolling every hour did not make sense and was not necessary.
Following this ruling, the employer took the matter to the Labour Court, which ruled in favour of the employer.
The court found that the employee was aware of the rules, repeatedly breached them, and failed to heed prior warnings.
The court further ruled that the rules were valid, reasonable, and consistently applied, and that his conduct undermined the employer’s security concerns.
As a result, the initial order was overturned, and the court ruled that his dismissal was not unfair.
For the full discussion on this matter, listen to the podcast…
READ NEXT: Understanding Legal Aid and how to access it – KAYA 959
