A WhatsApp ‘joke’ about load shedding landed a Ford employee in hot water.

When an employee posted a ‘joke’ on WhatsApp telling colleagues that the plant would be closed due to load shedding and that layoffs would follow, both his employer and the CCMA took a dim view.

Whether an
employee’s dismissal for posting a WhatsApp message, purporting to be from the
employer’s management, on the employer’s group in which the employees are
informed that the employer’s plant will be closed on 3 May 2023, for the
afternoon and night shift from 20:00 until 06:00 the following morning due to Stage
6 load shedding, was substantively fair.

Facts

The above
issue was considered by the Commission for Conciliation Mediation and
Arbitration (CCMA) in the case of National Union of Metalworkers of South
Africa obo Mahlangeni v Ford Motor Company SA (Pty) Ltd (2023) 32 CCMA. The
facts of the matter are briefly as follows.

The
Applicant, Mr Mahlangeni, was employed by Ford Motor Company of South Africa
(Pty) Ltd as an operator at one of their plants.

On 3 May
2023, Mahlangeni posted a message on Ford’s group (without any authorisation)
stating that “due to the Stage 6 Load Shedding, the Ford Struandale Engine
Plant would on 3 May 2023, be closed for the afternoon and night shift from 8pm
until 6am on the following morning”. In addition, the message stated that “the
affected shifts would be placed on a layoff on Wednesday, 3 May 2023 and that
in the absence of any changes the affected employees would be required to come
to work on the following day, 4 May 2023”. Approximately 47 employees were part
of the group.

As a result
of posting the above message to the group, Mahlangeni was charged and found
guilty of misconduct for “Falsifying information with regards to the layoff
communication and attempting to sabotage the Production on the 03 May 2023…” and was thereafter dismissed. Dissatisfied with this outcome, Mahlangeni
challenged the substantive fairness of his dismissal at the CCMA (he did not
contest the procedural fairness of his dismissal).

Ford’s
version

Ford
argued, amongst others, that Mahlangeni’s misconduct was “very serious and
tantamount to fraud…” and could have “resulted in approximately 47 employees
not reporting for duty”. This, in turn, would have affected Ford’s production. They would have failed to meet their daily targets and not have met customers’
demands/needs. For the reasons mentioned above, Ford argued that the dismissal
was substantively fair.

Applicant’s
version

Although
Mahlangeni did not dispute sending the message to the group, he, however,
claimed that it was deleted “within seconds” and that he sent another message
to the group stating that the earlier message was “just a joke” (emphasis
added). The latter was, however, disputed by Ford, who argued that the message
was only deleted after management intervened. Mahlangeni further argued that by
deleting the message, he acknowledged that what he had done was wrong. He also
stated that Ford did not suffer any losses and Ford’s production was not
affected as a result of his message. Based on the latter, Mahlangeni argued
that the sanction of dismissal was too harsh.

CCMA
analysis

In
analysing the evidence presented, the Commissioner referred to the Code of Good
Practice: Dismissal of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (LRA).

Given that
Mahlangeni only challenged the substantive fairness of his dismissal and, in
particular, the appropriateness of the sanction of his dismissal, the
Commissioner referred to item 7 of the Code, which requires any person who is
considering whether a dismissal for misconduct is unfair to consider, “whether
or not the employee contravened rule or standard regulating conduct in, or of
relevance to the workplace; and (a) if the rule or standard was contravened,
whether or not… (iv) dismissal was the appropriate sanction for the
contravention of the rule or standard” (our emphasis).

Turning to
question of whether dismissal was the appropriate sanction for the misconduct,
the Commissioner considered “gravity of the misconduct” (our emphasis) as well
as the importance of deterring fellow employees from engaging in such
misconduct.In considering the gravity of the misconduct, the Commissioner
stated that one must have regard to the context of the message.

The
Commissioner noted that South Africa is facing many challenges as a result of
load shedding and that “the disruption of electricity supply has placed many if
not all employers in a very precarious position in their ability to meet their
daily targets in relation to production is under immense strain”. The effect of
the latter is that customers’ demands are not met which leaves them frustrated.

Referring
to Mahlangeni’s misconduct, the Commissioner stated that employees who are part
of the group would have believed that false message given the context above,
and this would have deterred them from coming to work. This would have affected
Ford’s production, resulted in them not meeting their daily targets and caused
irreparable harm. According to the Commissioner, Mahlangeni was also dishonest
in that the posting of the message was deliberate and a calculated effort. The
fact that the message was deleted did not rescue Mahlangeni in that it should
never have been posted.

The
Commissioner, therefore, held that dismissal was an appropriate sanction and
substantively fair given the severity of the misconduct.

Importance
of the case

Employees
who post messages on their employer’s social media groups must consider the
impact of same on the employer and other employees.

Jacques van
Wyk and Andre van Heerden are directors at Werksmans. 

News24 encourages freedom of speech and the expression of diverse views. The views of columnists published on News24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of News24.