In the matter of Medici Energy (Pty) Ltd v Bennet NO and Others (C89/2023) [2025] ZALCCT 34 (21 May 2025) the Labour Court in Cape Town heard the employer’s attempt to overturn a Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) ruling which found the dismissal of the employee to be both substantively and procedurally unfair.
The employee who had been employed as a sales executive, was dismissed on 28 July 2022 following a disciplinary hearing.
The main charge against her was gross insubordination for failing to return to the company’s Cape Town office on 13 June 2022, after being instructed to do so.
She had been working remotely from Paarl for over two years under an arrangement linked to her son’s auto-immune condition.
At the disciplinary hearing, she was found guilty of misconduct. However, she challenged the fairness of her dismissal at the CCMA.
The Commissioner ruled in her favour, awarding compensation equal to eight months’ salary.
The Commissioner concluded that the instruction to return to the office was not a reasonable one, but rather issued in retaliation after the employee signalled her intention to file a grievance against two managers.
The Commissioner pointed to evidence that her work-from-home arrangement had been in place for a considerable period and had been acknowledged by the company in various communications.
The abrupt demand to return to the office, issued on a Friday for implementation the following Monday, was found to be capricious and punitive rather than operationally necessary.
The timing was also significant, as it came immediately after the employee had requested formal grievance documentation.
On review, the employer argued that the Commissioner’s award was not one a reasonable decision-maker could have reached.
However, the Court held that the Commissioner’s conclusions were well supported by the evidence.
The Court noted that the company’s own witnesses were inconsistent on whether an agreement to work from home existed and that no convincing reason was advanced for its sudden termination.
Procedurally, the Commissioner had also found unfairness.
The employee had not been provided with details of one of the misconduct charges, and her chosen representative was prevented from assisting her during the disciplinary process on dubious grounds.
The Court agreed that these failures further undermined the fairness of the process.
In dismissing the review application, the Court emphasised that the Commissioner’s award comfortably met the test of reasonableness established in Sidumo v Rustenburg Platinum Mines Ltd.
The order of the Court was that the employer’s application be dismissed, with no order as to costs.
>creditparsans<In this weekly column, labour lawyer Jonathan Goldberg, chair of Global Business Solutions, looks at various aspects of labour law
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.