Pioneer Foods supervisor loses Labour Court battle after dismissal for slapping colleague's behind
Labour Court rules against Pioneer Foods supervisor in sexual harassment case.
Image: Pexels
The Labour Court in Cape Town has set aside a Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) award and upheld the dismissal of a Pioneer Foods production supervisor found guilty of sexually harassing a subordinate.
Acting Judge W Jacobs ruled that the dismissal of Peter Hoop was both procedurally and substantively fair, overturning a CCMA decision that had ordered his reinstatement.
Hoop, who had been employed by Pioneer Foods since 2001, was dismissed in March 2023 following an incident involving a female subordinate, Eloise Bredenkamp.
The incident occurred during a night shift briefing in January 2023, when Hoop allegedly grabbed Bredenkamp’s arm, spun her around and slapped her on the buttocks without her consent.
The conduct was anonymously reported through the company’s internal “Speak Up” platform. Following a disciplinary enquiry, Hoop was dismissed for sexual harassment, in line with the company’s zero-tolerance policy.
Disenchanted, Hoop referred the matter to the CCMA. In May 2024, the commissioner found that the dismissal was procedurally fair but substantively unfair. While confirming that the conduct amounted to sexual harassment, the commissioner reinstated Hoop without back pay and replaced the dismissal with a final written warning.
Pioneer Foods approached the Labour Court to review and set aside that award, arguing that the commissioner’s findings on provocation, credibility and sanction were unreasonable.
The company said commissioner’s finding failed to acknowledge the fact that Pioneer Foods has a very strict anti-harassment policy and there is a zero-tolerance attitude toward harassment in the workplace. Moreover, the incident took place in front of a number of co-workers, and it was shocking to everyone.
Judge Jacobs agreed, finding that the commissioner had improperly relied on a claim that Hoop was “provoked” after being poked by the complainant — an allegation that was never put to her or to another eyewitness during cross-examination.
“The act of grabbing someone, spinning her around and slapping her on the buttocks can hardly be regarded as unintentional,” the judge held, describing the commissioner’s finding of spontaneous, instinctive conduct as unreasonable.
The court emphasised that the company’s strict anti-harassment policy, the power imbalance between supervisor and subordinate, the public nature of the incident, and Hoop’s continued denial of wrongdoing were not adequately considered by the commissioner.
“A perpetrator of sexual harassment who sees no wrong in his conduct and refuses to accept responsibility places himself in a position where dismissal becomes the only suitable sanction," read the judgment.
The court further noted that dismissal in such circumstances was an “operationally sound decision” and that long service does not protect employees who seriously damage the relationship of trust and confidence.
"A valid and fair reason for the sanction is required. Dismissal will not be unfair when a valid reason seriously damages management’s trust or confidence," said the judge.
IOL News