Online Reporter
Nyore Madzianike-Senior Reporter
A FORMER NetOne Cellular (Pvt) Limited customer care representative, Faith Ndagurwa, has lost her bid for reinstatement after the Labour Court dismissed her appeal against dismissal linked to a fraud case that cost the mobile network operator more than ZW$556 million in 2023.
Ndagurwa was dismissed after allegedly sharing her smart account password and login credentials with a colleague, Khumbulani Nyapfumbi.
Nyapfumbi went on to execute fraudulent transactions on five occasions between December 2022 and January 19, 2023, leading to significant financial losses for NetOne.
Following internal disciplinary proceedings, Ndagurwa was found guilty of misconduct and dismissed.
She appealed the decision to the company’s Internal Appeals Committee, which upheld her dismissal on March 14, 2023.
Unhappy with the outcome, she escalated the matter to the Labour Court, seeking reinstatement without loss of pay or benefits.
In her appeal, Ndagurwa argued that she had acted under instructions from her immediate supervisor, Jemina Karombe, who allegedly requested her credentials to expedite work due to Karombe’s pregnancy and related health issues.
Ndagurwa claimed she was complying with what she believed to be a lawful order. However, the disciplinary panel concluded that Ndagurwa had a duty to report the unusual request to her zone commander or loss control.
Her failure to do so, they found, constituted a serious breach of company protocols. In its defence, NetOne argued that the absence of a written password-sharing policy did not excuse Ndagurwa’s conduct.
The company also noted that she had not provided evidence of coercion or undue pressure that compelled her to share her credentials.
Labour Court Judge, Justice Bridget Tapiwa Chivizhe, presiding over the matter, ruled that Ndagurwa’s appeal lacked merit.
The judge emphasised that while the company may not have had a written policy explicitly prohibiting password sharing, the assignment of personal smart accounts and passwords implied a clear expectation of individual responsibility, privacy and security.
While acknowledging Ndagurwa’s claim that she acted under her supervisor’s orders, the judge emphasised that this did not exempt her from exercising due diligence.
Justice Chivizhe concluded that Ndagurwa acted negligently by sharing her password, fully aware that she would lose oversight over its use.
“Therefore, although the misconduct alleged is not part of any written code, it is not unreasonable to assume that the purpose of assigning each employee a personal smart account and password would be for the purposes of privacy and security.“
Although the appellant submitted that she only did so because it was an order from her immediate superior, this did not relieve her of her duty to perform due diligence first.
“She did not attempt to enquire from her supervisor as to why her personal password had to be used and as to what it was being used for. She also did not bother to find out why Khumbulani’s (Nyapfumbi) password had been blocked in the first place.”
