A sticky situation: Shoprite dismisses employee for using company sugar

Mike Wills interviews Marthinus van Staden, Associate Professor at the Wits University School of Law.

Listen below.

In a world where a mere pinch of sugar or the taste of a carrot could jeopardise your livelihood, one might question whether the scales of justice in South African labour law have tipped into the realm of the absurd.

In his Daily Maverick article titled 'From sugar to carrots – Overzealous workplace discipline leaves a bitter taste,' Van Staden explores this troubling phenomenon.

Referred to as 'the sugar case', the matter involves Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd v Makaloi, where a long-serving baker with an impeccable record found himself in serious trouble for allegedly using company sugar in an unauthorised area. 

The crux of the issue lay in the employer’s failure to convincingly prove that the sugar was company property or that the employee had consumed it.

This lack of evidence ultimately led the Labour Court to rule the dismissal as substantively unfair.

"It couldn't be proved, despite video footage, that it was actually company sugar or that the employee actually took a sip of the hot beverage."

- Marthinus van Staden, Wits University School of Law

While this situation may seem trivial, Staden argues that it reflects a broader challenge facing South African workplaces: the struggle to balance order and fairness with the rights and dignity of employees. 

He highlights the importance of maintaining clean disciplinary records and long service as crucial factors in mitigating harsh penalties for minor infractions, underscoring the need for a more nuanced approach to workplace discipline.

"Employers need to reassess their disciplinary policies to ensure that these policies allow for consideration of individual circumstances."

 - Marthinus van Staden, Wits University School of Law

Scroll up to the audio player to listen to the interview.