Unauthorised possession of company property
In one matter, an employee of a former client worked as a general warehouse worker.
The warehouse environment operated under strict security protocols, including random searches whenever employees exited the warehouse for smoke breaks, lunch, or tea breaks.
On the day in question, the employee triggered a handheld metal detector during a routine search. Security personnel conducted a physical search and discovered two or three small brass connectors in his pocket. These components formed part of a radiator assembly used in the employer's operations.
When questioned, the employee explained that he had placed the items in his pocket and intended to ask his manager for permission to keep them but had forgotten to do so.
The employee was known in the workplace as someone who collected scrap metal for personal projects at home. On previous occasions, he had asked management for permission to take discarded materials, and such requests had sometimes been approved.
According to his version, he observed a co-worker packing boxes and noticed the brass connectors. He told the co-worker that he wanted the items. The co-worker informed him that the connectors needed to remain in the box with the rest of the components. Despite this, the employee removed the items and placed them in his pocket, stating that he would later seek permission from his supervisor.
Importantly, at the time he removed the items, he had not obtained permission from either the co-worker or management.
The employee continued working for several hours before leaving for a cigarette break, at which point the brass connectors were discovered during the random search.
A disciplinary hearing followed. The security officer who discovered the items testified, as did the co-worker from whom the components were taken, confirming that the employee had removed the parts without authorisation.
The employee's defence remained consistent: he claimed that he had simply forgotten the items were in his pocket and had made no deliberate attempt to conceal them.
After considering the evidence, the chairperson found the employee guilty of unauthorised possession of company property and dismissed him.
The employee subsequently referred an unfair dismissal dispute to the CCMA, challenging the substantive fairness of his dismissal. The matter proceeded before a DRC commissioner, who ultimately upheld the employer's decision to dismiss.
Why we succeeded
- Permission was never obtained — The central issue was not the value of the items but the fact that company property was removed without authorisation.
- Intent was inferred from conduct — The employee knowingly removed the parts after being told they were required for operational use and kept them in his pocket for several hours.
- Trust is critical in a warehouse environment — Employers operating in stock-sensitive environments are entitled to apply strict standards where unauthorised possession of company property is concerned.
- The employee's explanation was plausible, but insufficient — Forgetfulness alone did not outweigh the objective facts surrounding the removal and possession of the items.
- The sanction was appropriate — Given the breakdown of trust and the nature of the workplace, dismissal fell within the range of reasonable sanctions.