3 October 2024
Employee abscondments in the workplace presents a significant challenge for employers, impacting operational efficiency and team morale. This issue not only disrupts business operations but also complicates the process of addressing an employee’s absence from the workplace efficiently, and it complicates the balance between the need for effective management and the rights of employees.
What is Absconding?
Absconding refers to an employee leaving their job or workplace abruptly, often with the intention of avoiding their responsibilities or obligations. It can suggest that the individual has left without informing their employer, possibly with the intention of not returning to the workplace. Uncommunicated absence for a period of more than 3 days will be dealt with as absconding in most disciplinary measures.
Communicated absence from work cannot be dealt with as abscondment since the employee has shown an interest and intention to return to work by informing his employer of his whereabouts.
An employer must determine if an employee intends to return to work by informing the employee to return to work immediately. The employer can also get hold of the employee by either calling them on their cell phone, sending them a message via SMS , WhatsApp, E-Mail and/or Telegram and delivering a letter to the employee enquiring their whereabouts.
This would subsequently follow up with a notice to attend a disciplinary inquiry. The employee will be charged with abscondment or unauthorized leave from work. The employee should be given the notice to attend at least 48 hours before the inquiry. The employee should also be notified that if he/she is absent during the disciplinary inquiry, it will still take place. In the event that the employee was dismissed, the company should then inform the employee on their dismissal and remind them of their right to refer the matter to the CCMA within 30 days of the dismissal.
In order for the dismissal to be considered fair, it is up to the employer to prove that there has been reasonable attempts were made in order to have made the employee return back to work, a reasonable period of absence was taken by the employee before the dismissal was deemed as an appropriate sanction, the unreasonable absence period, the impact that it has had on the operational requirements and work dynamics of the company and lastly, that the employee had no intention of returning to work.
As seen in previous cases, The case of Meerholz v Norman - 1916 TPD 332 held that wilful and deliberate act of being absent from work is required. Further, the commissioner had considered the employees employment record; long years of service and high unemployment rate of the country. Even then, these considerations were to be contemplated together with all other relevant factors in this case, which were that the employee had not shown good cause for his prolonged absence. The invariable conclusion that his absence in such circumstances was wilful is inescapable and warranted dismissal and In Khumalo & Another v Otto Hofmann Handweaving Co (1988) 9 ILJ 883 (IC) and in Moroke v Maksal Tubes [2003] 12 BALR 1321 (P), the Court held that dismissal is justified where absence is frequent enough to disrupt work and appropriate where an employee shows an intention to abandon their employment.
In Classic Number Trading 80 (Pty) Ltd t/a Nashua Tshwane v Shaik-Ahmed and others (JR 838/13) [2015] ZALCJHB 71 (handed down on 15 March 2015) the Employee failed to provide a satisfactory justification for his prolonged absence without permission.
The LC held that the absence was excessive and thus required frank and proper justification. Being a supervisor placed an additional burden on the Employee to set an example of good conduct and compliance with policies to his juniors. He was totally indifferent to the interests of his Employer, and in the circumstances, it was unreasonable to expect the Employer to keep the Employee in its employ when he has little regard to its operational interest, and on top of that showed no remorse when confronted about the incident.
While both absconding and absenteeism pertain to an employee's absence from the workplace, they differ substantially in the intent and the context. Unlike absconding, absenteeism may not fundamentally imply any intent to avoid responsibilities and is commonly managed through established workplace policies and procedures. Understanding these differences helps employers address each situation appropriately and thus supports maintaining fair and effective workplace practices.
Contact Invictus for guidance and assistance in terminating employees for abscondment. Get in touch with our office at 086 173 7263 or email us at admin@invictusgroup.co.za
