A sales manager just lost her job over two chocolate bars

A sales manager learned the hard way that enjoying two chocolate bars on company funds can cost you your job.

The two chocolate bars became the centre of legal scrutiny in Johannesburg. A commissioner accepted the claim of hunger during arbitration proceedings, indicating how personal circumstances can intersect with legal matters. The Labour Court has now deliberated on this unique situation.

JDG Ltd, also known as Hi Fi Corporation, appealed a labour court ruling that ordered the reinstatement of an employee, MM, after her dismissal was deemed substantively unfair.

The sales manager of the applicant’s branch in Jabulani Mall was dismissed after taking petty cash, on two separate occasions, for stationery purchases related to a promotional campaign run by the applicant.

MM purchased the stationery, but also bought two chocolates for her private consumption. She did not disclose this purchase to the branch manager.

A week after a significant purchase, the branch manager discovered a shortage in the petty cash account. When approached, the employee confessed she wasn't sure how to rectify the situation.

She was brought before a disciplinary hearing, and she was found guilty of misusing petty cash. The chairperson recommended dismissal, which was implemented.

She challenged this and the arbitrator found that if MM was intent on concealing the purchase, she would not have submitted the till slips to the applicant which provided evidence of the two purchases. 

He found that the till slips are there for everybody to see. The arbitrator noted that he appreciates that MM was not authorised to purchase chocolates but accepted her explanation that she was hungry and that she did not have an opportunity to have lunch. 

She had a clean disciplinary record at the time and even offered to repay the money back, the arbitrator said.

But the company (the applicant) asked the labour court to review the arbitrator’s findings on the ground that MM made herself guilty of an offence which falls under the scope of dishonesty. The uncontested evidence was that she used company funds to purchase chocolates for herself and she failed to disclose this to anyone, the company argued.

It said If the slips were not eventually checked the fact that she purchased items for herself using company funds would never have been discovered. It was argued on behalf of the company that the trust relationship is completely destroyed. 

Acting Judge C de Kock said it is not disputed that the trust relationship has broken down. The judge added that it was also an unreasonable conclusion to reach that MM had some sort of justification for using company funds and then not to disclose that she had done so.   

According to the judge “it is beyond this court’s understanding” that the arbitrator can find that an act of using petty cash for an employee’s own personal use, did not constitute an act of dishonesty. 

“The undisputed evidence was that she did not seek permission to use petty cash money for her own use and neither did she declare the fact that she used petty cash money when she returned to the workplace on both occasions after she purchased chocolates,” the judge said in confirming her dismissal.

[email protected]