The Johannesburg High Court on appeal turned down defamation claims by a worker in the mining industry following a lunch bag incident.
Image: File
A playful slap of the strap of a man’s lunch container on the backside of a female worker had landed him in hot water when she complained that he had disrespected her, which ultimately resulted in him losing his contract job at the mine where he was working.
Subsequent to this, John Sephton instituted claims for defamation against the mining group Anglo America, as it barred him from its premises, as well as from the complainant.
He also claimed damages from the subcontracting company for which he worked, as the latter succumbed to the demands of the mining group that it did not want him on its premises.
He did not succeed with his claims in the Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg, but subsequently appealed the verdict before three judges. They, however, turned down his appeal.
Sephton was subcontracted by a company to provide services as a hydrologist at the Anglo mining group. On the day of the incident, he and a colleague stood talking at the entrance to their shared workspace. Sephton had his lunch bag in hand. The lunch bag was of the type that included a strap for ease of carry.
He was in a jocular mood, and as he walked past the woman who later complained about him, he swung the lunch bag towards her. It made contact with her buttocks.
Judge Denise Fisher, who wrote the appeal judgment, said while she accepted that the conduct was not intended to offend and that it was a playful gesture, it was offensive and distressing from the perspective of the female worker. The worker testified that she experienced the act of being struck in this way as disrespectful to her.
The female worker laid a complaint under Anglo’s harassment policy. Sephton was subsequently barred from entering the mining site for two months, with full pay.
The inquiry found that there was no sexual harassment, and Sephton apologised for his conduct, which was accepted. He was allowed back on site. When the woman heard he was back on site, she experienced, what she described in her evidence, a “panic attack”.
There was, a day later, an accusation from management that, on his return to site, Sephton continued to behave in a manner that some staff members felt was inappropriate. He denied this, and this accusation was never proved.
He was, however, not wanted at the site by Anglo, and the subcontractor for which he worked had no choice but to abide by the instructions of the Anglo parties.
Judge Fisher said the woman never accused Sephton of sexual harassment, as he claimed. She only complained that his conduct had made her feel disrespected; thus, she turned down this damages claim.
But the judge added that it is understandable that he was upset about being investigated for sexual harassment. The court also understood the fact that he was upset as he was barred from the site for a second time after he had apologised for his initial conduct and cleared of any sexual misconduct.
While she said his claims were not established against any of the respondents, this case should serve as a lesson to others as to how to conduct themselves at work.
“This case presents a cautionary tale as to the fragility of workplace relationships. People come together in diversity. Their differing backgrounds often lead them to differ in their appreciation of jokes and banter. One person’s playful act may be interpreted by another as deeply insensitive or disrespectful.”
She said this diversity calls for the utmost restraint and the observing of all protocols and courtesies at all times when working with others.
zelda.venter@inl.co.za