Kingstons HR boss dismissed

It was common cause that in June 2010 Sithole was a director in a company named Globe Trade.
At the same time, he was a human resources manager and acting marketing manager with Kingstons.
Globe Trade signed a lease agreement with Kingstons in which it leased some premises to the latter.
Evidence was adduced, which was not challenged, that at the time the premises were leased to Kingstons, Globe Trade was in the business of selling books.
The selling of books by Globe Trade was therefore in direct competition with Kingstons.
It was after this issue was brought to Sithole’s attention that he resigned from being a director of Globe Trade.
He was then charged, and it was Kingston’s contention that Sithole’s duty as acting marketing manager was to eliminate competition from other players.
Sithole instead entered into an arrangement, which encouraged competition and without declaring his interest to Kingstons.
This was viewed as a serious breach of trust and Sit­hole was penalised by dismissal.
He appealed to the Labour Court.
Labour Court senior president Ms Gladys Mhuri, noted that Sithole’s prayer and his oral submissions showed the matter ought to have been filed as a review application.
Ms Mhuri said: “Sithole is not seriously challenging the substantive issues, but the procedure adopted by Kingstons. In his grounds, he concludes by stating that the hearing and dismissal was unproceedural.”
Sithole submitted that the section used for the hearing was not the correct one as it was for senior employees who reported directly to the general manager.
He was reporting to the group human resources man­ager.
Sithole further submitted that the general manager wrote the charge instead of his immediate supervisor who was not even notified.
Ms Mhuri considered Sithole’s submissions and came to the conclusion that Kingstons did not flout any of the provisions of its code.
“I’m persuaded by the Appeals Officer’s finding that the leasing of the premises was not relevant to the charge. It does not matter where Globe Trade conducted its business from,” said Ms Mhuri.
The fact was that Sithole was a director in a company that conducted the same business with that of his employer and he did not declare his interest.
In the result, Ms Mhuri found Sithole’s appeal without merit and dismissed it.