A Cape Town police sergeant, Noreen Bam, has lost her appeal in the Labour Court after being dismissed for shoplifting at Checkers Hyper in 2015. The court upheld her dismissal, ruling that her actions undermined the integrity expected of a police officer.
The Incident
The incident occurred in December 2014 when Bam, then serving at Mowbray Police Station, went shopping with her mother at a Checkers Hyper. According to testimony, a security officer observed the pair transferring items from a shopping trolley into a black and white bag and a baby bag.
When they reached the till, they only paid for some items while others, including meat packets, remained hidden in the bags. As they exited the store, the alarm sounded, triggered by unscanned tags on the stolen items.
Upon inspection, unpaid items were found in the bags.
False Identity and Arrest
Bam reportedly gave the false name Suzette Karelse, a name she claimed was her childhood nickname, and attempted to bribe the security officer with R1,000 to avoid being detained.
A police officer from Parow Police Station testified that she arrested Bam and her mother. Bam pleaded for her mother to take the blame and begged not to be detained, requesting an alternative resolution.
The stolen items, valued at R400, were returned to Checkers.
Bam’s Testimony and Defense
Bam denied the allegations during her disciplinary hearing and subsequent Labour Court appeal. She testified that she was unaware of the alleged shoplifting as she had been drowsy from medication and was preoccupied with changing her baby’s nappy in the car.
Bam claimed her mother had unknowingly purchased the meat from a stranger outside the store. She alleged the items were placed in their bags before they entered Checkers and that the alarm sounded due to unscanned tags on these items.
She further denied giving a false name, asserting that her mother used the name Suzette Karelse, which was a nickname Bam had acquired as a child.
Mother’s Testimony
Bam’s mother supported her daughter’s defense, testifying that she had bought the meat for R50 from a man outside the store. She claimed to have felt sorry for the man and did not closely inspect the items before placing them in her bag.
She denied stealing anything from Checkers and said they had also shopped at Game before entering the supermarket.
Labour Court’s Ruling
Judge Robert Lagrange dismissed Bam’s application, finding her defense to be unconvincing and inconsistent. He ruled that the evidence presented during the disciplinary hearing had been fairly weighed by the arbitrator, who rejected Bam’s version of events.
The judge noted:
- Bam’s claim of being unaware of the stolen items was inconsistent with the evidence.
- Her denial of providing a false name was contradicted by her written admission as Suzette Karelse when returning the stolen items.
- The arbitrator was correct in concluding that Bam’s mother’s testimony was not credible and characterized the defense as a simple denial.
The court further ruled that Bam’s employer was not obligated to recall witnesses due to alleged oversights by her legal representative during the arbitration process.
Key Findings
Judge Lagrange concluded that Bam’s actions, including the use of a false name and her attempt to bribe the security officer, demonstrated a failure to uphold the standards of integrity required of a police officer. He stated:
“The arbitrator cannot be said to have made a finding that no other reasonable arbitrator could have arrived at.”
The Labour Court upheld her dismissal without awarding costs.
Implications of the Ruling
The case highlights the importance of integrity in public service, particularly for law enforcement officials. Bam’s dismissal and the Labour Court’s ruling reinforce the principle that public servants must maintain the highest ethical standards, both on and off duty.
This judgment serves as a cautionary tale for professionals entrusted with public responsibility, emphasizing the severe consequences of unethical behavior.
