NSSA clerk fired for fraud

of US$5 000.
Ivyline Wanyunya was employed by NSSA at its Rusape Branch as a clerk typist and her duties included receiving and receipting cash from clients.
Whilst receipting certain amounts of cash, Wanyunya failed to stamp the date on the receipts and as a result, the administrative assistant, a P Gama converted those amounts to own use.
As a result, Wanyunya was charged with fraud, theft, gross negligence and aiding another to steal US$5 000 she had receipted and received without stamping.
She was found guilty on all charges and dismissed from employment.
Wanyunya then appealed to the Labour Court for reinstatement, arguing that the disciplinary hearing exceeded the 30 day period set out in the Labour Act and this resulted in her being prejudiced.
She further argued that the outcome of the disciplinary hearing was served to her in excess of 14 days after the hearing, while she was denied the right to cross-examine witnesses.
It was Wanyunya’s contention that there was no evidence on a balance of probabilities that she committed the offences in question that Gama admitted to.
Labour Court president Mrs Loice Matanda-Moyo noted it was clear from the evidence that Wanyunya exercised her rights in terms of the Labour Act and referred the matter to a Labour Officer.
Mrs Matanda-Moyo said: “The Labour Officer referred the matter back for hearing and ordered the proceedings to be concluded within 14 days.
“Since the matter was dealt with the Labour Officer’s directions, I see no prejudice suffered by the appellant as a result.”
She pointed out Wanyunya did not allege that 14 days lapsed without a decision having been reached, but complained that she received the determination after 14 days.
Mrs Matanda-Moyo said she did not see how that violated the quoted section, as it was clear the determination was reached within the set period.
“From the facts, the money received on behalf of respondent was not banked on the day it was received and someone would use the money then return it for receipting and banking.
“Such person was gaining profit using respondent’s money.
“Whether that person is appellant or P. Gama is irrelevant and I’m satisfied that this element was proven well,” she said.
Mrs Matanda-Moyo pointed out that Wanyunya knew that she was misrepresenting on her receipts in order to obtain an advantage for P. Gama.
Although Wanyunya argued that she was cleared by the police and was a State witness against Gama, Mrs Matanda-Moyo said it was common cause that criminal proceeding and disciplinary hearings were distinct procedures with different burdens of proof, it was noted.
She agreed with NSSA’s submission that fraud went to the root of the employment contract and appellant was employed in a position of trust, which could no longer be reposed on her.
Mrs Matanda-Moyo ruled that the penalty of dismissal was appropriate.