Sonja Vorster
The problem of absenteeism is big in many companies and it is increasing. It affects workers that have to take up the extra load due to another worker being absent from work without prior notification. In the matter of Meerholz v Norman – case 1916 TPD 332 – the following was found that where an employer chooses to appoint certain definite hours for work and the employee accepts that contract, then the employer is entitled to require that those hours be adhered to.
It is not a requirement that the employer have to show that those hours are necessary for the running of the business. Where the employee fails repeatedly to keep those hours, the employer is entitled to dismiss him.
The following can be defined as absenteeism:
• Arriving late, also called poor timekeeping. It is still absent as long as the employee is not at work.
• Leaving early, again, poor timekeeping. It is still absent if he is not at work.
• Extended tea or lunch breaks – the employee is not at the workstation, and therefore absent.
• Attending to private business during working hours – the employee is at work, but is not attending to his duties in terms of the employment contract – and is therefore absent.
Extended toilet breaks – same as extended lunch or tea breaks.
• Feigned illness – thus giving rise to unnecessary visits to the on-site clinic, or take time off to “visit the doctor or clinic” – which they never do, because they don’t need a medical certificate for less than two days off.
• Undue length of time in fetching or carrying items from one point to another.
• Other unexplained absences from the workstation or from the premises.
• Absence after agreement was reached to work overtime.
Employers need to understand that a consistent and fair approach must be taken to stop this type of behaviour. All levels of employees must be treated the same. In Namib Wood Industries v Mutiltha and another – case 1992 (1) SA 276 (Nm) A – the employee, a factory manager, had absented himself for an entire afternoon on three consecutive days despite having been refused permission to do so. Ruled that the first instance would have justified dismissal, the dismissal was upheld.
Companies must ensure that a rule is known and it is a good idea to re-look at the employment contract and disciplinary code and ensure that each employee is aware of the rules and regulations.
