News24 | Worker fired for taking home one toilet roll wins R120 000 back pay, reinstatement

An employee fired for allegedly taking home a roll of company toilet paper has been reinstated with back pay.

• An employee has won R120 000 in back pay and has been reinstated after being unfairly dismissed over a single toilet roll.
• Packaging company Mpact dismissed the worker in 2022 for allegedly stealing a company toilet roll.
• The Cape Town Labour Court questioned why security let the worker put the roll back in his bag, saying he had “implicitly” been given permission to leave with it.
• For more financial news, visit News24 Business.

A court has ordered a packaging company to reinstate a worker it fired for allegedly stealing a single toilet roll, describing parts of the company’s case as “rather bizarre” and “unbelievable”, and its investigation as “botched”.

The case dates back to late 2022, when an employee of Mpact, a JSE-listed packaging and recycling business, was fired for allegedly taking home a single roll of the company’s toilet paper.

Theodore April, the employee, had worked at Mpact for 13 years.

When security searched his bag following a tip-off as he was leaving after a shift in October 2022, they found a roll of toilet paper that April said he brought from home.

The company said the toilet paper it used was unique and could not be bought in retail stores.

But rather than confiscating the roll, security allowed April to leave with it. At a later internal disciplinary hearing, he was fired for dishonesty and “theft or unauthorised possession of company property”. The company found that the roll was the same brand as the one it uses.

An arbitrator later dismissed Mpact’s findings and ordered April to be reinstated with back pay. Mpact then took the arbitrator’s ruling on review to the Labour Court, saying it had wrongly rejected its evidence and underestimated the “serious nature” of the alleged offence while focusing on the negligible value of the toilet roll.

April was represented by the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (Numsa).

‘A rather bizarre turn’

The Cape Town Labour Court has now dismissed Mpact’s review bid, saying April’s dismissal was substantively unfair. It has also ordered the company to pay him R120 000 in back pay and reinstate him.

Acting Labour Court Judge M Mkhatshwa found Mpact’s case was weak. Not only had security let the employee leave in October after finding the roll of toilet paper in his bag, but they had not taken pictures of the type of roll used by Mpact on the same day.

“It is simply unbelievable that the [the employee] was then allowed to place the suspected stolen roll, which, according to his version, he had brought from home, back in his bag […] and he was allowed to leave with it. This is captured on video, and this evidence is common cause,” found Mkhatshwa.

Mkhatshwa found that an explanation by Mpact’s safety and security manager, who acted as a witness for the employer, was “incredible”. The security manager said he did not pay attention to the fact that April had placed the toilet roll back in his bag, as the security office was very busy at the time. “This is just unfathomable,” said the judge.

Mkhatshwa also questioned why pictures comparing the roll in the bag and the toilet rolls in use at the time were not taken on the day his bag was searched. “At this point, things start taking a rather bizarre turn,” said the judge.

Although a picture of April’s roll was taken, the fact that no pictures were taken comparing it to rolls used by the company meant the case was “botched from the moment of the investigation”.

“The photographs of the suspected stolen roll, together with a photograph of the applicant’s toilet roll, would have almost invariably proven the guilt or otherwise of the [respondent],” said the judge.

And given that April was allowed to place the roll back in his bag and leave, he had in effect been given the green light to proceed.

“The [respondent] was not stealing the roll; implicitly, he had permission to leave with the roll because, once again, all those present did not deem it necessary to confiscate the ‘exhibit’,” said Mkhatshwa.

He added that at least three security personnel were on hand on the day.

“Their collective skill set ought to have enabled them to deal with the scene more professionally and effectively than they did. They failed in the execution of their duties.”