Labour Court upholds dismissal after driver’s unauthorised stop caused R1m Woolworths loss

The Labour Court has dismissed a challenge by a truck driver who sought to set aside an arbitration award that upheld his dismissal after an unauthorised overnight stop delayed a Woolworths delivery and resulted in R1 million in damage.

What happened on the trip

The driver, identified in court papers as A Masondo, worked as a Code 14 driver for Imperial Fast & Fresh, a division of DP World (Pty) Ltd. He was dismissed after being charged with gross insubordination and gross dereliction of duty following a delivery trip with his co-driver, Gasant, between Cape Town and Johannesburg.

According to the facts placed before the arbitrator, Gasant pulled off at Ventersburg at about 11:17pm and remained there until about 5:15am. Masondo was said to have been resting at the time.

Delay, damage and company rules

The stop contributed to the truck arriving back in Cape Town at about 1:10am on April 3, 2020. The total trip time was 30 hours and 21 minutes, which was 6 hours and 21 minutes longer than the 24-hour period the company said drivers were required to adhere to. The company alleged the delay resulted in damage to the client amounting to R1 million.

Arbitrator’s findings

The arbitrator considered whether Masondo knew about the unscheduled stop, whether he had a duty to inform the company and whether he had breached the company’s dual-driver rule. Evidence from Gasantwho later diedwas admitted by the arbitrator despite being hearsay.

The arbitrator rejected Masondo’s claim that he was asleep when the truck stopped and concluded that Masondo knew about the stop and should have enquired whether permission had been obtained or the company informed. The arbitrator did not find Masondo guilty of gross insubordination but did find him guilty of insubordination for failing to follow a standing instruction and guilty of gross negligence for not advising his co-driver or ensuring permission was obtained.

Labour Court review

Masondo applied to the Labour Court to review and set aside the arbitration award, arguing that the arbitrator made errors of fact and law. The Labour Court emphasised that it was reviewing the award, not re‑hearing the matter, and that an award can be set aside only where an arbitrator misconceived the nature of the enquiry or reached an outcome no reasonable arbitrator could have reached on the evidence.

“The findings made by the arbitrator are however not divorced from the evidence led before him.”

The court found that the arbitrator had assessed the evidence, considered witness reliability and the probabilities of competing versions, and that the outcome was reasonably supported by the material before him. The review application was therefore dismissed.