breakdown of trust in employment relationship

This indicated that the LC accepted that misconduct had indeed been proven.Īutozone appealed to the Labour Appeal Court (LAC) on the grounds that the LC erred by failing to assess the facts and circumstances of the case and in finding that no evidence was led relating to the breakdown of the trust relationship. It was also ordered that Sikhakhane be issued with a written warning for the misconduct. The LC set aside the CCMA’s award and ordered Sikhakhane’s reinstatement to the date of dismissal. In the absence of such evidence, it was found that the dismissal was unfair. This is a question of fact to be established by evidence. The LC held that the test is whether the trust relationship has been breached to the extent that it renders a continued employment intolerable. The LC held that there was no evidence that showed how the conduct for which the employee was found guilty of impacted on the relationship of trust. The LC accepted (without explicitly finding as such) that the misconduct had been proven but made no attempt to analyse the evidence to determine the nature of the transgression.

The appellant argued for the reasonableness of the arbitrator’s award. The arbitrator concluded that Autozone had discharged the onus of proving on a balance of probabilities that the dismissal was for a fair reason and was accordingly substantively fair.Īggrieved by this outcome, Sikhakhane took the matter on review to the Labour Court (LC). Sikhakhane lodged an unfair dismissal dispute at the CCMA and testified to the same version. When confronted about the missing R30, Sikhakhane could not provide an explanation but later explained that he had acted out of his own initiative to pay the workers more and had withheld the balance until the work was complete.Īutozone dismissed Sikhakhane for dishonesty (theft, misappropriation of company funds or attempted theft or misappropriation). It subsequently came to the branch manager’s attention that Sikhakhane withdrew R180 and only paid over R150. He only paid R150 to the casual employees. Once the task was completed, the regional manager, in the presence of the branch manager, instructed Sikhakhane to obtain R150 from the cashier. In the presence of Sikhakhane, the regional manager informed the casuals that they would each be paid R50 for the work. He was instructed by the regional manager to employ three casual workers to clean up waste and rubble.

The facts of the case are briefly as follows:Īllen Sikhakhane was employed by Autozone as a driver. In the case of Autozone v Dispute Resolution Centre of Motor Industry and Others JOL 41073 (LAC), such an issue arose. Such conduct poses an operational problem for the employer as it makes it difficult to trust the employee. When an employee commits a dishonest offence and acts deceitfully, it is accepted that a reasonable employer will lose trust in such employee as the misconduct demonstrates untrustworthiness which makes the employee unreliable and a continued employment relationship intolerable.

Breakdown of trust in employment relationship