Toyota’s dismissal of a Zulu employee was found to be unfair by the CCMA and this finding was upheld on review by the Labour Court.
The employee, Mr Njilo, was dismissed for dishonestly claiming leave for death of “mothers” and “son”.
The “son” was Mr Njilo’s late brother’s son and the “mothers” had been his late father’s second wife and his aunt.
He gave evidence at the arbitration that in Zulu culture, a man assumes responsibility for his deceased father’s wives and the children of his deceased brother. He was traditional and would have used cultural names to describe the relationships; e.g. “mamncane” for his father’s wife and so on.
The Labour Court took into account the fact that the relevant provision in Toyota’s policy dealing with compassionate leave was obscure, underscoring the importance of clearly drafting and communicating policies to employees in order to hold them bound thereto:
The leave policy in question comprises some 35 pages, with compassionate leave situated in an obscure section in smaller writing. Not one of the applicant’s four witnesses averred that in some work session or personally Mr Njilo was given a copy of the policy or that its contents were properly explained to him (or employees in general). Given the common knowledge that there are cultural differences where it comes to who is viewed as family, one would have thought that the policy on compassionate leave would have been better published and explained.
Read a copy of the judgment here:
Toyota v Njilo
