The Court of Appeal has upheld a decision by security firm Wells Fargo Limited to dismiss a group of cash management officers for abandoning ATM services for contracted banks over alleged welfare grievances.
The court, however, faulted the security services company for conducting a rushed disciplinary process and ordered compensation equivalent to two months’ salary for each worker.
The appellate court overturned a key finding by the Employment and Labour Relations Court, which had ruled that the dismissals were unfair and awarded each employee compensation equivalent to 12 months’ salary.
The dispute dates back to December 2013 when the employees, who were responsible for loading ATMs and handling sensitive access combinations, stopped work while demanding a meeting with senior management over their working conditions.
The workers complained of long hours, late-night shifts and a lack of transport home after working late. They told the court they had repeatedly raised the concerns with management without success.
Court records show that on December 5, 2013, the officers reported to work at 6am but declined to continue with their duties until their grievances were addressed.
The employees later claimed they were detained by police, issued with show-cause letters and dismissed the following day.
Wells Fargo defended the dismissals, arguing that the officers had engaged in an unlawful work stoppage that threatened to cripple ATM operations and expose the company and its banking clients to significant risks.
The company said the workers held sensitive ATM access combinations and refused to hand them over despite requests from management.
The Court of Appeal agreed with the employer’s position, ruling that the company had reasonable grounds to conclude that the officers’ conduct amounted to gross misconduct.
Valid grounds
‘It is not in dispute that the respondents admitted that on the material day they collectively declined to continue working until their grievances were addressed,’ the judges said.
The court added that the officers were entrusted with ATM operations and sensitive access codes and that their refusal to work had ‘immediate operational implications’.
The appellate court found that Wells Fargo had established a valid and fair reason for terminating the employees’ contracts.
However, the judges found that the disciplinary process fell short of the requirements of the Employment Act.
The court noted that although show-cause letters were issued, disciplinary hearings were convened and concluded within a day before dismissal letters were issued.
Wells Fargo moved from issuing show-cause letters on December 5 to hearing the employees and dismissing them by December 6, a timeline the judges said denied the workers a meaningful opportunity to prepare their defence.
‘The compressed timeline between the show-cause letters and the hearing did not afford the respondents a meaningful opportunity to prepare their defence,’ the court said.
The judges stressed that disciplinary proceedings must give employees a realistic opportunity to understand the allegations against them, consult representatives, gather documents and prepare a defence.
‘If an employee receives notice and is heard on the same day or the following morning, especially in misconduct cases involving dismissal, fraud, strike allegations, or multiple employees, such a notice ought to be found to be inadequate unless urgency is clearly justified,’ the court said.
The appellate judges also criticised the trial court for failing to adequately consider the employees’ role in the breakdown of the employment relationship.
‘The evidence demonstrates that they collectively engaged in a work stoppage affecting essential banking operations, which substantially contributed to the breakdown of the employment relationship,’ the court said.
The judges concluded that the award of 12 months’ salary was excessive and substituted it with compensation equivalent to two months’ gross salary for each employee.