A WhatsApp “joke” about load shedding has left Ford employees in the lurch.
Both the employer and the CCMA took a dim view when an employee posted a “joke” on WhatsApp telling colleagues that the factory would be closed to reduce load and that there would be job cuts as a result.
An employee for posting a WhatsApp message in the employer's group informing employees that the employer's factory will be closed from 20:00 on May 3, 2023 for afternoon and night shifts. Due to Stage 6 load shedding, things were essentially smooth sailing until 06:00 the next morning.
fact
The above issues were considered by the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) in the case of South African National Union of Metalworkers Mahlangeni v Ford Motor Company SA (Pty) Ltd (2023) 32 CCMA. Simply put, the facts are as follows.
The applicant, Mr Mahlangeni, was employed by Ford Motor Company (Pty) Ltd in South Africa as an operator at one of its factories.
On May 3, 2023, Mr. Mahlangeni posted a message (without permission) on the Ford group stating, “Due to Stage 6 load shedding, the Ford Struandale Engine Plant will be closed on May 3, 2023, from 8:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. “It will be closed for afternoon and night shifts until 3:00 p.m.,” he said. 6am the next morning. ” Additionally, the message states, “Affected shifts will be furloughed on Wednesday, May 3, 2023, and if no changes are made, affected employees will be required to report to work the following day, May 4, 2023.” It was stated that. . Approximately 47 employees belonged to the group.
As a result of posting the above message in the group, Mahlangeni was indicted and found guilty of misconduct for “falsifying information regarding the termination notice and attempting to disrupt production on May 3, 2023,” and subsequently I was fired. Dissatisfied with this outcome, Mr Mahlangeni challenged the substantive fairness of his dismissal at the CCMA (he did not challenge the procedural fairness of his dismissal).
ford version
Ford claimed, among other things, that Mr. Mahlangeni's misconduct was “so serious that it amounted to fraud” and that “approximately 47 employees may have failed in their duties.” If that happens, Ford's production will also be affected. They would not have been able to meet their daily goals and would not have been able to meet their customers' wants/needs. For the reasons set out above, Ford argued that the dismissal was substantively fair.
Applicant version
Mahlangeni did not object to sending the message to the group, but claimed it was deleted “within seconds” and that he sent another message to the group, saying the previous message was “just a joke”. (emphasis added). However, the latter was disputed by Ford, which claimed the messages were only deleted after management intervened. Mahlangeni further claimed that by deleting the message he admitted that his actions were wrong. He also said that Ford had not suffered any losses and that Ford's production had not been affected as a result of his message. Based on the latter, Mr Mahlangeni argued that the sanction of dismissal was too harsh.
CCMA analysis
In analyzing the evidence submitted, the Commissioner referred to the Code of Good Practice, Labor Relations Act 66 of 1995 (LRA).
The Secretary specifically stated that the Code provides that “employers and employees should treat each other with mutual respect” and that “employers are entitled to satisfactory conduct and performance from their employees.” He emphasized.
Given that Mr Mahlangeni only challenged the substantive fairness of his dismissal, and in particular the appropriateness of the sanction for his dismissal, the Commissioner considered whether his dismissal for misconduct was unfair. He referred to section 7 of the Act, which requires persons with disabilities to: “Whether the employee violates any rules or standards regulating conduct in or related to the workplace, and (a) if the employee violates the rules or standards,… (iv) whether dismissal for the violation is appropriate; Consider whether the sanction was “of a rule or standard'' (our emphasis).
Turning to the question of whether dismissal was an appropriate sanction for the misconduct, the Secretary noted the “seriousness of the misconduct” (our emphasis) and the fact that fellow employees would engage in such misconduct. The importance of preventing this was considered. Considering the gravity of the misconduct, he said: The Secretary said the context of the message needed to be considered.
The Commissioner noted that South Africa faced a number of challenges as a result of load shedding, stating that “interruptions in electricity supply have affected the ability of many, if not all, employers to meet their day-to-day production targets.'' “We are in a very precarious position,” he said. A huge burden.” In the latter case, customer requirements will not be met and customers will remain dissatisfied.
He said it was important to note that “the issue of load limits and their negative effects are very serious issues and are not a joke.''
Referring to Mr Mahlangeni's misconduct, the Commissioner said employees who were part of the group would have believed the false message given the above context and that would have deterred them from coming to work. Ta. This would have affected Ford's production, making it unable to meet its daily targets and causing irreparable damage. He said Mahlangeni was also dishonest in that the posting of the message was deliberate and calculated. The fact that the message was deleted does not save Mahlangeni, as it should not have been posted.
Accordingly, the Commissioner determined that, given the seriousness of the misconduct, dismissal was an appropriate sanction and was substantially fair.
Importance of the incident
Employees who post messages on their employer's social media groups should consider the impact this will have on their employer and other employees.
Jacques van Wyk and Andre van Heerden are the directors of The Worksmans.
newsArticle 24 encourages freedom of speech and the expression of diverse opinions. The views of columnists published on News24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of News24.
