A tip of R150 given to a waitress by a couple who had a meal at the restaurant where she was working, cost the waitress her job – a sanction with which the Labour Court sitting in Johannesburg fully agreed.
The woman was employed at Johannesburg-based Chef’s Warehouse at Maison Estate restaurant, which had a policy that all waiters had to declare their tips so that they could be shared among the staff at the end of the evening.
In this case it was claimed that the waitress, a Ms Taguzu, pocketed not only the R150, but that on a few occasions prior to this she also took tips for herself.
While she vehemently denied that she received the R150 tip, she also told the court that she did not agree with the restaurant’s policy of shared tips.
After her employer had fired her, Taguzu turned to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and
Arbitration (CCMA), but the commissioner found that her dismissal was fair. She subsequently turned to the Labour Court to have the commissioner’s findings overturned.
She maintained that her dismissal was unfair.
Taguzu was employed by the restaurant as a waitress with effect from November 2016. Her services were terminated in February 2018 following a disciplinary inquiry into allegations of misconduct related to gross dishonesty, sparked by the R150 tip.
The restaurant management said it had implemented a policy in December 2017 after consultation with all the staff, in terms of which all front-house waitrons would be required to disclose all cash gratuities received from customers.
The purpose of the policy was for the management to ensure that at least 25% of all gratuities were shared among all back-house staff, who also contributed to patrons’ service and diners’ experience.
One of the owners testified that the policy was designed to ensure fairness among all staff members who contributed to the overall services of customers (including cleaners and gardeners). This policy was in line with practice in other restaurants and did not benefit the restaurant in any way, according to the owner.
While the staff signed the policy, Taguzu refused.
The owner said, however, that despite her resistance she had verbally undertaken to follow it. Her acceptance of the policy was further demonstrated by her having declared her gratuities on the same day that the policy was implemented.
Following investigations it was, however, discovered that on a few occasions she had not declared the gratuities she received.
At least three customers had confirmed that they had tipped her after their meals.
The owner held the view that she had acted dishonestly, and thus broke a trust relationship with the restaurant. He further contended that she effectively stole from her fellow employees as the policy was intended to benefit all of them.
The patron who paid her the R150 tip that sparked the issues said she and her husband dined at the restaurant where Taguzu served them as their waitress. After dining, she paid for the meals through a credit card, and gave the waitress R150 as a gratuity.
Taguzu denied this and said the woman’s version of events was fabricated.
The commissioner at the CCMA concluded that if Taguzu had concerns with the implementation of the policy, she ought to have referred a dispute to the CCMA. He further concluded that she had indeed breached company policy by failing to disclose the gratuities she had received from customers.
The commissioner found the evidence of the patron credible and that it was probable that she had indeed paid the R150 tip.
Judge ET Tlhotlhalemaje, in confirming the findings of the CCMA, said it could not be disputed that the policy in question existed and that all the employees were consulted prior to its implementation.
“That policy did not, in any material respects, alter the applicant’s terms and conditions of employment. A gratuity from customers in a restaurant in circumstances where an employee is also paid a salary cannot, unless specified in a contract of employment, be a right or entitlement unless, of course, specified in that contract.
“The policy in question, after all the employees were consulted, was meant to benefit all of them, including the applicant,” the judge said. “Given the applicant’s unreasonable resistance to the policy, her conduct, in my view, was not only self-serving, but equally bordered on greed.”
He said it was not clear whether Taguzu also benefited from the general pool of gratuities in the period she had failed to make her own declarations.
“If indeed she did, it fortifies the conclusions that she was indeed greedy,” he said in turning down her application.
Pretoria News