The conduct of an employee who mistakenly accused one of her co-workers of being the father of her child and obtained an order against him to undergo a paternity test, which resulted in the police serving the order on the red-faced man at work, had erupted in a legal battle.

The woman, who may not be named, was fired by Legend Logistics, the company for which she had worked. The reason for her dismissal was that she had falsely accused a co-worker and caused the police to show up at work, which caused him embarrassment in front of his co-workers.

She turned to the National Bargaining Council, which ruled that her dismissal was substantively unfair. Her employer had to pay R156 000, being her eight months’ salary.

The employer now turned to the Johannesburg Labour Court to have this finding overturned.

The woman was dismissed in 2023 following a disciplinary hearing in which she was found guilty of misconduct.

The employee had been involved in a romantic relationship with a colleague who was employed as a chef and resided on the premises of the employer. She also had a romantic relationship with another man, with whom she said she had protected sex.

She was certain that her colleague was the father as she did not suspect the other man as they had taken precautions.

Her colleague disputed that he was the father of the child and refused to participate in a paternity test.

She approached the maintenance court to force the colleague to pay maintenance. The court knew that he was disputing paternity, and it ordered that the SAPS serve him with a notice to participate in a paternity test.

The police served the notice on the colleague at his work. According to the evidence, a commotion broke out as all his colleagues witnessed this.

The colleague subsequently underwent the paternity test. The results were that he was not the father. When the company became aware of these results, it decided to charge the woman and dismiss her for the “false” allegation.

At the disciplinary hearing, she accepted that her allegation that her colleague was the father of her child was incorrect, in light of the results of the paternity test, yet she was fired.

Asked about this during the arbitration hearing, the chairperson of the disciplinary hearing explained that she had to be fired as the trust relationship between her and her colleague was damaged. He said her colleague was put through the trauma of being falsely accused of being a father.

When asked what rule she breached in doing so, he responded it was for giving false information and for bringing the SAPS to the company.

The chairperson of the disciplinary hearing explained that if she had brought the police to the colleague’s house, that wouldn’t have been a problem, but “inside the company premises is not on”.

The witness, however, conceded that the colleague resided on the employer’s premises, which is why the police had served the court notice on him at the workplace.

Both the arbitrator and the Labour Court found that the woman was not dishonest at all, as she honestly did suspect him to be the father. She asked him to take a paternity test, which he declined; thus, she had to go the maintenance route.

The mere fact that the employee’s suspicion was incorrect does not mean she committed misconduct. The employer unfairly focused on the feelings of the male colleague, who may have been embarrassed by the allegation that he was the father of the child, the Labour Court said in confirming that the company had to compensate her financially.

Cape Argus

#fired

'Obey now, grieve later': court upholds prison official's dismissal for refusing hospital duty

Court upholds prison official's dismissal for refusing hospital duty

Five mineworkers challenge dismissal over food ban at Sibanye Gold

Paternity test drama leads to woman's victory in unfair dismissal case