Firm ordered to reinstate storesman

Vista supplied size 610 by 810mm which was received by Nelezina. Upon realisation that the size received was incorrect, Nelezina dully advised his superiors.
Thereafter, he altered the copy of the goods received voucher to reflect the size received.  As a result, Celsys felt Nelezina altered the voucher to conceal his inefficiency.
He was charged with an act or omission inconsistent with the fulfilment of conditions of employment.
Nelezina appeared before a disciplinary officer, was found him guilty and he was fired.
He appealed to the acting chief executive officer who upheld the findings of the disciplinary officer.
Nelezina then appealed to the NEC for  the industry, which ruled that the dismissal was too harsh and ordered his reinstatement.
It also ordered that he be served with a final written warning valid for 12 months.
Aggrieved by the ruling, Celsys noted an appeal with the Labour Court.
No grounds of appeal were filed, but instead Celsys attached its heads of argument to the notice of appeal.
Nelezina had filed documents showing that he understood what Celsys was appealing against.
The company argued that Nelezina admitted he was guilty of the offence, but only complained of the harsh penalty.
Labour Court president Ms Loice Matanda-Moyo noted that was correct.
Said Ms Matanda-Moyo: “Nelezina admitted he was negligent in receiving the wrong size of paper. He did not measure the paper but assumed it was the right size.
“The difference with the ordered paper was not visible to the naked eye and the mistake was realised when the paper was taken to the press.”
The press minder raised the issue with Nelezina and advised him to report to his superiors.
Unfortunately the managers he reported the matter to never testified in the hearing to counter Nelezina’s version that he altered his copy after talking to them.
Ms Matanda-Moyo said from the facts before the court, the decision of the NEC could not be faulted.
“The purpose of disciplining any employee is corrective.
“The purpose of the hearing should be to correct an employee,” she said.
“Dismissal should be the last resort.            The NEC found that in the circumstances, dismissal was too harsh considering Nelezina has served Celsys for four and half years.”
Having analysed the reasoning by the NEC, Ms Matanda-Moyo found no reason to interfere with such finding that the offence did not warrant dismissal.
Accordingly, she dismissed the appeal by Celsys and ordered Nelezina’s reinstatement or payment of damages.