A Cape Town police Sergeant who wanted to fight her dismissal after she was fired for shoplifting at giant supermarket Checkers Hyper, lost her appeal in the Labour Court.
Noreen Bam was dismissed in August 2015 after a disciplinary hearing was held in December 2014.
During the hearing, it was found that she failed to uphold the interest of the employer by unlawfully taking items from the shelves at Checkers Hyper. Furthermore, it was said Bam failed to act honestly by giving a false name and address when she arrested.
At the time of the incident, Bam was serving at Mowbray police station.
On the day of the incident, Bam had gone shopping with her mother when they went to Checkers and a security officer at the store allegedly saw the pair loading items from a store trolley into a black and white bag and a baby bag.
The security officer testified that when they got to the till, they only paid for certain items and did not pay for anything in the bags. As they were about to exit the store, the alarm went off after it was activated by unscanned tags on meat packets.
When they were searched, the security officer found unpaid store items in the bags.
When she asked Bam her name, Bam identified herself as Suzette Karelse, a name of a singer. She said Bam begged her to release them and offered to draw R1,000 to pay for the stolen items.
A police officer from Parow police station, testified that she's the one who arrested Bam and her mother. She said returned the stolen meat, which was R400.
She testified that Bam gave a false name and asked if her mother could not take the blame and also begged not to be detained. At the police station, she requested that they find another way of dealing with the matter rather than arresting her.
In her testimony, Bam said she had gone shopping with her mother and while she was busy changing her baby’s nappy in the car, an unknown man sold her mother something. She was unaware of this transaction at the time because drowsy from medication she was taking.
She claimed that when they entered Checkers the alarm went off and the security officer did not look in the two bags, they were carrying but taped the baby bag and a Game and Cash Crusaders bags. However, the security officer testified that she never saw any Game or Cash Crusaders bags.
Bam said they bought a few items at Checkers and when they attempted to leave the store, the alarm was triggered by unscanned tags attached to meat packets hidden in their bags, leading to their subsequent arrest.
She testified that this was the first time she became aware of her mother’s purchase. She further denied identifying herself as Suzette Karelse. Instead, she said it was her mother who identified her this way because this was her nickname due to her singing capabilities as a child.
Furthermore, she said the security officer's testimony should be recalled because during the arbitration hearing, her attorney had failed to cross-examine the security on the contradictory evidence she had given at the disciplinary enquiry even though she had instructed to him to do so.
Meanwhile, Bam’s mother testified that she had bought meat items from a stranger for R50,00 while her daughter was busy with her baby. She said she felt sorry for the man who begged her to buy the goods and did not have a proper look at them.
She claimed the goods were emptied into her black and white handbag and then they went and shopping at Game, before going to Checkers. She vehemently denied that they stole anything from Checkers.
Judge Robert Lagrange said the arbitrator had weighed up the evidence and was correct in dismissing Bam and her mother's versions as their defence was characterised by simple denial.
Moreover, he said Bam's employer can't be subject to the disadvantage of having its witnesses recalled because of alleged oversights of her legal representative.
Regarding Bam's false name, the judge said even though she denied providing a false name, it should be noted that when returning the goods to Checkers, she wrote that she was Suzette Karelse.
"In the circumstances, the arbitrator was perfectly entitled to assume she had done so deliberately. Moreover, because Bam’s actual defence was that it was her mother who proffered that false identity on her behalf, there was no reason for the arbitrator to have considered if Bam had somehow done so negligently.
"The arbitrator cannot be said to have made a finding on this that no other reasonable arbitrator could have arrived at," said the judge
Her application was dismissed with no costs.
sinenhlanhla.masilela@iol.co.za
IOL