Modisakgotla runs a bakery. He has employed Tiro as a baker. Since Tiro took up employment, he frequently absents himself from work and he is rarely punctual. When confronted about his poor timekeeping and frequent absences from duty, Tiro blames his conduct on traffic jams, foul weather, and occasional visits to the clinic. Modisakgotla has since discovered that the real reason behind Tiro’s regular absences and lack of punctuality is that Tiro is working as a baker in Tiro &Tiro Bakery, a business owned and managed by Tiro’s wife. Modisakgotla recently suffered a financial setback resulting from the fact that his main customer, Moeding School, is purchasing half the number of loaves that it did daily. Modisakgotla has discovered that Tiro &Tiro Bakery is now supplying Moeding School with bread. Modisakgotla dismissed Tiro. Tiro has challenged his dismissal at the Industrial Court. Modisakgotla has approached you seeking advice as to whether the termination was substantively unlawful.