Employers: Is Your Zero Tolerance Policy Enforceable?
The supermarket, the supervisor, and the undeclared deodorant
- A supermarket chain, attempting to curb employee theft in its store, imposed a zero tolerance policy requiring employees, on entering the store, to declare any goods (except those clearly not store property).
- Employer practice was to issue a final written warning to employees who failed to declare goods but were able to produce proof of purchase, and to dismiss those who weren’t able to prove purchase.
- A security guard found an undeclared deodorant stick worth R11-99 in a supervisor’s handbag when she left the store.
- At her disciplinary hearing the supervisor admitted breaking the rule but said the deodorant belonged to her and she had just forgotten to declare it on entering the store. She couldn’t produce proof of purchase but said she expected only a warning for a first offence.
- She was dismissed and referred the dispute to the CCMA, arguing unsuccessfully that dismissal was not appropriate. On review the Labour Court set aside the dismissal.
- On appeal the LAC, although finding the employee to be “not a good and truthful witness”, confirmed that dismissal was substantively unfair. “It is difficult”, said the Court, “to appreciate how a single transgression of this rule, except as regards high value goods, is sufficient to warrant dismissal”. In the circumstances a final written warning would have been the appropriate sanction.
The bottom line
A zero tolerance policy is fine where circumstances warrant it, but dismissal for non-compliance must be appropriate in the particular circumstances.
Provided by Taylor and Finlay Attorneys
© DotNews. All Rights Reserved.