IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF SWAZILAND
HELD AT MBABANE CASE NO. 145/06
In the matter between:
VIRGILIO TAI MANGWE APPLICANT
SWAZILANDLUMBER SECURITY RESPONDENT
N. NKONYANE :JUDGE
DAN MANGO : MEMBER
GILBERT NDZINISA : MEMBER
FOR APPLICANT : B.S. DLAMINI
FOR RESPONDENT : M.P. SIMELANE
 The applicant was employed by the respondent as a Security Guard on 16 January 1992. He was earning a salary of E1,072:87 per month. He was in the continuous employment of the respondent until December 2005. He alleged in his papers that he was unfairly dismissed by the respondent. He has thus instituted the present proceedings for determination of an unresolved dispute between him and the respondent.
 A certificate of unresolved dispute is accordingly annexed to the applicant’s application and is marked annexure “VTM 001.” On the certificate of unresolved dispute the nature of the dispute is reflected as being “Alleged unfair dismissal.” The issues in dispute are reflected as being
“2.1 Notice pay = E1,072.87
2.2 Additional Notice = 4x12 years x 41.26 = E1,98048
2.3 Severance allowance = 10x12 years x 41.26 = E4,951.20
2.4 Maximum compensation for unfair dismissal =
12 months x E1072.87 = E12,874.44”
 Applicant’s evidence:
The applicant told the court that when he was engaged by the respondent his duty station was at Thembelihle. He was guarding the premises of an entity called Mozambique Ports and Railways. He was reporting for duty at 6:00 p.m. until 06:00 a.m. He travelled to work by foot and was staying with his family at Manzana. The applicant said he performed his duties so well at his duty station such that the person in charge of the establishment, a certain Oscar Antonio Jorge, asked the respondent not to transfer him from that duty station.
 The applicant said on 12 December 2005 he reported his employer, the respondent to CMAC for failure to pay him certain monies due to him. The applicant said in response to this, the respondent transferred him from Thembelihle to Qwabiti, a place that is situated next to Mhlambanyatsi. The applicant said the respondent would transport him to his new duty station. He said after about a week the respondent refused to transport him to Qwabiti unless he paid E185:00 per day for the transport. He said he did not have that money and he left the respondent’s employ.
 Respondent’s evidence:
The respondent denied that the applicant was unfairly dismissed from his employment. RW1 Ncamsile Simelane told the court that the applicant resigned by surrendering the respondent’s uniform because he did not want to go and stay at Qwabiti. She said the applicant did not want to go and stay at Qwabiti because he wanted to remain in Manzana. She also said it was not part of the condition of employment that the applicant would be transported to work by the respondent. RW1 said the applicant was transferred from Thembelihle to Qwabiti because the client at Thembelihle had complained about the applicant that he was arriving late at work and leaving early.
 RW1 said the applicant was told that he would be transferred from his post at Thembelihle. The applicant was given one week to prepare for relocation. At Qwabiti the applicant was going to be provided with accommodation and food ration. After one week the applicant had still not packed his personal items in readiness to move to Qwabiti. RW1 said the applicant told her that he could not leave his family. RW1 said it cost the respondent E185:00 to transport the applicant to Qwabiti every day. Upon the respondent insisting that the applicant should relocate to Qwabiti because it was costly to transport him there everyday, the applicant then disappeared for three days. He resurfaced on the fourth day whereupon he surrendered the company uniform and left.
 Analysis of the Evidence:
RW1 denied that the applicant was transferred to Qwabiti because he had reported a dispute against the respondent at CMAC. During cross examination RW1 said the applicant was already at Qwabiti when he reported the dispute. The court will therefore reject the applicant’s version that he was transferred to Qwabiti because he had reported a dispute against the respondent. The court will accept the respondent’s version that the applicant left his employment on his own accord because he did not want to be stationed at Qwabiti. The court will also accept the respondent’s evidence that the respondent never asked the applicant to pay E185:00 for his transport’s costs, but that the respondent told him to pack his belonging and be ready to be relocated as it was costing the respondent E185:00 per day to transport him to Qwabiti whereas accommodation was available at Qwabiti.
 In his written submissions the applicant stated that the respondent had a duty to provide transport and/or accommodation to the applicant following the transfer to Qwabiti. Indeed the respondent did provide the accommodation at Qwabiti. During cross examination RW1 confirmed that there was accommodation at Qwabiti. The respondent therefore was not at fault as it did provide accommodation but the applicant did not want to stay at Qwabiti because of his own personal reasons. The applicant decided to resign by surrendering his uniform to the respondent. There was therefore no duty on the respondent to thereafter search for the applicant in order to subject him to a disciplinary hearing. This was not a case of an employee who disappears from work and his whereabouts unknown, in which case there would have been a duty on the respondent to attempt to find him before it dismissed him on grounds of absence.
 The reasons for the applicant’s failure to relocate to Qwabiti were personal. He just wanted to stay with his family in Manzana. This was clearly a minor disruption and it cannot be said that the applicant was seriously prejudiced as there was no evidence that;
(a) The transfer was going to affect his health or performance,
(b) His children’s education was going to be disrupted.
The applicant himself told the court that the distance between Mbabane and Qwabiti is equal to the distance between Mbabane and Mvutshini. From the evidence before court it was not shown that the conduct of the respondent was such that it was impossible for the applicant to continue to work.
(See: TIMOTHY MAKHATHU v JD GROUP OF COMPANIES case No.37/2001 (ICA).
 The applicant was clearly not a credible witness. He gave different versions in court as to why he was dismissed. He first said he was dismissed because he reported a dispute against the respondent. He then said he was constructively dismissed because the respondent demanded that he pays E185:00 for transport to work. These versions were shown to be false by the respondent’s witnesses. Further, the applicant gave the impression that he did not know why he was transferred from Thembelihle. RW2 Antonio Oscar Jorge told the court that he did talk to the applicant about his problem of coming to work late and leaving early. RW2 said on seeing that the applicant was not mending his ways, he then went to complain to the respondent. The respondent had the option to dismiss the applicant because of this misconduct, it did not but it transferred him to another duty station. Article 8 of the terms and conditions of employment stated that: “If a customer does not need you for reasons known to you, you will be fired.”
 Further, the lack of credibility of the applicant was testified to by himself. He told the court that some of what he said in his evidence was false and that he and his attorney agreed that he should tell lies in court and say he had no source of income.
 Taking into account all the evidence before the court and also all the circumstances of the case the court will make the following order;
The application is dismissed.
Each party to pay its own costs.
The members are in agreement.
JUDGE OF THE INDUSTRIAL COURT