A former Romans Pizza employee, M Donald, has lost a R1.3 million defamation claim against the company and a former female colleague. The Limpopo High Court in Polokwane found that a workplace grievance letter in which Donald was referred to as a "boy" did not amount to defamation. Donald had worked for Romans Pizza from 2004 until his dismissal in December 2022. He claimed R200,000 for damage to his dignity, R200,000 for damage to his good name and reputation, and R900,000 for future loss of income.
The court heard that on November 5, 2022, Donald's female colleague submitted a written grievance accusing him of sustained sexual harassment and inappropriate conduct. The grievance led to disciplinary action against Donald, who was subsequently charged with gross insolence, gross negligence relating to food safety, and sexual harassment. An independent disciplinary hearing found him guilty on all three charges, and he was dismissed. Donald challenged his dismissal at the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA), but it was dismissed.
The court found that the grievance was communicated only within the workplace and through the appropriate internal channels, establishing a qualified privilege over the occasion on which the statements were made. The judge said the complainant had a legitimate reason to report the alleged sexual harassment and that Romans Pizza had a legal and statutory duty to investigate such complaints and take appropriate action. The court therefore found that the grievance was protected by qualified privilege.
Donald argued that being called a "boy" carried a racial meaning and was defamatory. However, the court found that he had not properly pleaded an innuendo explaining the alleged defamatory meaning or presented expert evidence about the cultural significance of the term. The judge also noted that Donald himself had referred to the complainant as a "girl". The court found that, in the context in which the grievance was written, the word "boy" did not carry the racial meaning alleged by Donald.
The court also considered evidence from several witnesses concerning Donald's conduct towards female colleagues. The judgment said some witnesses described inappropriate language and unwanted touching, while other evidence concerned incidents in which Donald allegedly behaved aggressively towards colleagues. The court found the witnesses credible. The judge also noted that Donald had a disciplinary record spanning almost two decades, including two previous sexual harassment complaints.
Donald claimed R900,000 for future loss of income, arguing that the allegations and his dismissal had affected his ability to find employment. However, the court found that there was no sufficient causal link between the grievance and his alleged future loss of income. Donald had admitted during cross-examination that he had worked at Motate Lodge after his dismissal, undermining his claim that he had been unable to secure employment.
The court dismissed Donald's claim against both defendants and ordered him to pay the legal costs of both defendants on an attorney-and-client scale. The judge found the litigation to be opportunistic and criticised Donald's evidence on several material issues. The court also rejected Donald's request for written apologies, finding that such an order would be legally incompetent.
Key points
- The Limpopo High Court in Polokwane dismissed a R1.3 million defamation claim by a former Romans Pizza employee.
- The court found that a workplace grievance letter referring to the employee as a "boy" did not amount to defamation.
- The employee was dismissed following allegations of sexual harassment and had a disciplinary record spanning almost two decades.
