Employees should think twice before posting messages in their employer’s social media groups, adhering to the principle that such interactions should be all work and no play.
In a case heard recently by the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA), an employee was found to have been fairly dismissed for sharing a purportedly spoofed message on a Ford Motor Company SA WhatsApp group. The Commissioner deemed the dismissal appropriate, considering the severity of the misconduct.
An article by Werksmans directors Jacques van Wyk and Andre van Heerden, and candidate attorney Tasreeq Ferreira, delves into the merits and implications of the CCMA’s decision in National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa obo Mahlangeni v Ford Motor Company SA (Pty) Ltd (2023).
The case focused on whether it was “substantively fair” to dismiss an employee for sharing a WhatsApp message, claiming to be from the employer’s management, in the company group. The message informed employees about the closure of the plant on 3 May 2023 for the afternoon and night shifts because of Stage 6 loadshedding.
The facts of the matter
The applicant, Mr Mahlangeni, was an operator at a Ford plant. On 3 May 2023, Mahlangeni posted, without authorisation, a message on Ford’s group stating that “due to the Stage 6 loadshedding, 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 lay-off 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”.
About 47 employees were members of the group.
Mahlangeni was charged with and found guilty of misconduct for falsifying information and attempting to sabotage production. He was subsequently dismissed.
He challenged the substantive fairness of his dismissal at the CCMA.
Two sides to the story
Ford contended that Mahlangeni’s misconduct was “very serious and tantamount to fraud”, potentially causing about 47 employees to miss work. This, Ford argued, could have disrupted production, leading to a failure to meet daily targets and fulfil customer demands.
Mahlangeni admitted to sending the message to the group, but he claimed it was deleted “within seconds”, and he sent another message clarifying it was “just a joke”.
Ford disputed this, asserting that the message was removed only after management intervened.
Mahlangeni argued that deleting the message indicated his acknowledgment of wrongdoing. He maintained that Ford did not incur any losses, and production was not affected by his message.
CCMA’s analysis
In reviewing the evidence, the Commissioner referred to the Code of Good Practice: Dismissal, which states that employers are “entitled to” satisfactory conduct and performance from their employees.
In considering whether dismissal was the appropriate response, the Commissioner looked at the severity of the behaviour and the importance of discouraging others from similar behaviour.
In assessing the gravity of the misconduct, the Commissioner emphasised the need to understand the context of the message. With South Africa grappling with challenges such as loadshedding, the Commissioner highlighted the serious impact on employers, making it difficult to meet daily production targets and frustrating customer demands.
The Commissioner emphasised that loadshedding is not a joking matter. “The issue of loadshedding and its adverse implications is a very serious matter and not a matter of a joke.”
Addressing Mahlangeni’s misconduct, the Commissioner pointed out that employees in the group might have believed the false message, leading them to stay away from work. This would have disrupted production, causing Ford to miss daily targets and resulting in irreparable harm.
The Commissioner also found Mahlangeni dishonest, stating that posting the message was deliberate and calculated. Although the message was later deleted, the Commissioner argued this did not excuse the fact that it should not have been posted in the first place.
Consequently, the Commissioner concluded that dismissal was an appropriate and substantively fair sanction given the severity of the misconduct.
