Performance Pressure, Fairness And Disciplinary Action In The Workplace
In today’s high-pressure work environments, performance expectations are often stringent, particularly in industries requiring tight deadlines and large-scale project execution
What if an employee refuses a lawful instruction because it’s their birthday? Is dismissal justified?
Videos
Good everyone and welcome back to another episode in our What If series. We will bring you insights in the format of a what if question on the ever evolving landscape of employment law. My name is Ross Simon from Mastery Muller Corporate Employment Law and in today's episode we will be unpacking what if an employee refuses A lawful instruction because it's their birthday. Is dismissal justified? This unusual question came before the Labour Appeal Court in Department of Correctional Services. Verse TD Kuttu. The employee, who was a correctional officer with 17 years of service, was instructed to escort an inmate with serious medical problems to hospital. The employee refused his excuse. It was his birthday and he wanted to leave early. When management checked, it wasn't true. Confronted, he changed his story to it's actually his wife's birthday. Still, he refused. Finally, he said he was going for lunch. In a Correctional Facility, discipline and safety are critical. Escorting inmates is part of the job. This refusal not only defied authority, it also risked the inmates health.
The employer dismissed the employee for insubordination. The employee sought to challenge the fairness of his dismissal at arbitration. The Commissioner found the instruction to be lawful and reasonable and dismissal was upheld, but the Labour Court intervened. The Labour Court agreed that the employee was guilty, but to replace the sanction of dismissal with reinstatement and a final written warning, the court leaned heavily on the employee's 17 years of service and its view that the employee wasn't a problem employee. The employer then appealed against the Labour Court's decision.
The Labour Appeal Court overturned the Labour Court's decision and provided 3 main reasons. First, the wrong legal test was applied. The question wasn't whether a lesser sanction was possible, but whether dismissal was so unreasonable no reasonable commissioner could have imposed it. Second, the employees record wasn't clean. He already had three warnings, verbal written and a final written warning, all for insubordination. Therefore, this was repeat misconduct. And 3rd, the court reaffirmed the rule. Obey now, grieve later. If an instruction is lawful and reasonable, employees must follow it. If they believe it's unfair, they can challenge the instruction afterwards, following the proper channels and grievance mechanisms. And dishonesty made matters worse. By lying about his birthday, the employee damaged trust, a cornerstone of any employment relationship. The result? Dismissal, was found to be fair. So what are the key takeaways from this case? Long service isn't a shield. It counts in mitigation, but it won't protect employees from dismissal.
Dishonesty aggravates misconduct. Once an employee lies, it undermines trust. Once trust is broken, the relationship may be beyond repair. Conspiracies are no defence. The employee claim management was targeting him. The Appeal Court held that even if that were true, the employee could have protected himself by simply complying with lawful instructions. The safest course is to comply with instructions and then lodge a grievance. Context matters. In correctional services and similar sectors, refusal to buy instructions can have life or death consequences. This case reminds us that employment relationships are built on trust and compliance. If instructions are lawful and reasonable, employees must follow them no matter the occasion, birthday or not. That brings us to the end of this week's episode. Thank you for joining us. We hope you have found our discussion informative. If you have any questions or comments, we'd love to hear from you. You can find us on social media or you can e-mail me on ross@massconsulting.co.ca. Until next time, bye bye.
The employer dismissed the employee for insubordination. The employee sought to challenge the fairness of his dismissal at arbitration. The Commissioner found the instruction to be lawful and reasonable and dismissal was upheld, but the Labour Court intervened. The Labour Court agreed that the employee was guilty, but to replace the sanction of dismissal with reinstatement and a final written warning, the court leaned heavily on the employee's 17 years of service and its view that the employee wasn't a problem employee. The employer then appealed against the Labour Court's decision.
The Labour Appeal Court overturned the Labour Court's decision and provided 3 main reasons. First, the wrong legal test was applied. The question wasn't whether a lesser sanction was possible, but whether dismissal was so unreasonable no reasonable commissioner could have imposed it. Second, the employees record wasn't clean. He already had three warnings, verbal written and a final written warning, all for insubordination. Therefore, this was repeat misconduct. And 3rd, the court reaffirmed the rule. Obey now, grieve later. If an instruction is lawful and reasonable, employees must follow it. If they believe it's unfair, they can challenge the instruction afterwards, following the proper channels and grievance mechanisms. And dishonesty made matters worse. By lying about his birthday, the employee damaged trust, a cornerstone of any employment relationship. The result? Dismissal, was found to be fair. So what are the key takeaways from this case? Long service isn't a shield. It counts in mitigation, but it won't protect employees from dismissal.
Dishonesty aggravates misconduct. Once an employee lies, it undermines trust. Once trust is broken, the relationship may be beyond repair. Conspiracies are no defence. The employee claim management was targeting him. The Appeal Court held that even if that were true, the employee could have protected himself by simply complying with lawful instructions. The safest course is to comply with instructions and then lodge a grievance. Context matters. In correctional services and similar sectors, refusal to buy instructions can have life or death consequences. This case reminds us that employment relationships are built on trust and compliance. If instructions are lawful and reasonable, employees must follow them no matter the occasion, birthday or not. That brings us to the end of this week's episode. Thank you for joining us. We hope you have found our discussion informative. If you have any questions or comments, we'd love to hear from you. You can find us on social media or you can e-mail me on ross@massconsulting.co.ca. Until next time, bye bye.
This information is published for general information purposes and is not intended to constitute legal advice and should not be construed as such. Specialist legal advice should always be sought in relation to any particular situation. Maserumule will accept no responsibility for any actions taken or not taken on the basis of this publication. Consent must be obtained from Maserumule before the information provided herein is reproduced in any way. No person shall have any claim of any nature whatsoever arising out of, or in connection with, the information provided herein against Maserumule and/or any of its personnel.
LATEST RESOURCES
read more
Dismissal for the use of a cell phone at work
Dismissal for cell phone use at work often arises in contexts where such use compromises safety, productivity, or confidentiality.
The Labour Court was tasked to review an arbitration award which upheld the substantive fairness of the dismissal of the Employee, for the use of his cell phone for private purposes whilst working with machines and who was in fact injured consequently
Mental health in the workplace – A call to action for business
The importance of mental health cannot be overstated. While traditionally associated with physical safety, workplace health has evolved to include mental health, an equally critical aspect of employee productivity and satisfaction.
Protected Disclosure – Whistleblowing and the Legal Protections in South Africa
Whistleblowing simply put is the act of exposing illegal, unethical, or harmful activities within an organization. In South Africa, this critical role is safeguarded by the Protected Disclosures Act 26 of 2000 (PDA),
Broadening the scope of operational requirements
Employers may claim operational reasons as a basis for terminations as long as the reasoning is related to what may be considered a “similar need”.