Dismissed for failing to pay taxi fare

messages to the driver.
Everjoy Mutandagayi hired the taxi on May 26, 2010 from her home to work.

When she got to work she alighted and went into her office without paying.
After waiting for her for 50 minutes, the taxi driver drove off.
The driver then made follow-up phone calls to Mutandagayi but this yielded no results.

On May 30, 2010, she sent a text message to the taxi driver, whose content was offensive, abusive and insulting.
The driver then approached Old Mutual on June 2, 2010 to report the matter.
As Mutandagayi was off sick that day, the taxi driver went away only to return two days later. She was called to explain her conduct by the management and after the meeting, the fare was paid.

Mutandagayi was then arraigned before a hearing facing charges of using abusive and insulting language to a member of the public.
She was also charged with committing an act of dishonesty against a member of the public, thus putting the name of the organisation into disrepute.
Mutandagayi was found guilty on both charges and a penalty of dismissal with effect from July 21, 2010 was imposed.

She initially appealed to the Works Council, which also dismissed her appeal.
Mutandagayi then appealed to the assistant general manager, who dismissed her appeal also.
Aggrieved by this decision, she lodged an appeal with the Labour Court, citing the assistant general manager as the respondent.

Old Mutual submitted that the appeal was fatally defective by reason of the fact that Mutandagayi had sued the assistant general manager and not her employer.
The appellant, through her heads of argument, did not specifically address herself to the point in limine, and neither was the issue addressed in oral submissions.

Labour Court president Ms Beatrice Chivizhe, said the point in limine, in her view was a valid point.
Ms Chivizhe said: “The appellant has filed her appeal against the assistant general manager who acted as the appeals authority.

“Her appeal should have been against Old Mutual Life Assurance Company, her former employer.”
She pointed out that if appellant had any grievances regarding her dismissal, she could sue the company and not another employee as she had done.