What if an office romance ends in a dismissal? When does the dismissal become automatically unfair?

Good day everyone, welcome to another episode in our What if series where we bring you insights in the format of a what if question on the ever-evolving landscape of employment law. I am WP Moolman from Maserumule Corporate Employment Law and in today’s episode we will unpack What if an office romance ends in a dismissal? When does the dismissal become automatically unfair?

We've all heard the warnings about office romances. But here's a question that landed in the Labour Court this year: what happens when a consensual relationship between two senior colleagues ends — and one of them is later dismissed? Can that dismissal be automatically unfair?

That's exactly what an HR manager argued in the matter of Masimla v Pioneer Fishing. And the judgment, handed down in April 2026, is a masterclass in where the line actually sits between a workplace falling-out and unfair discrimination. Let's get into it.

The employee was the HR Manager at Pioneer Fishing, and from 2020 she'd been acting as the Group HR Manager. Around the same time, she entered into a consensual romantic relationship with the Group Chief Operating Officer.

Now hold that detail, because it becomes crucial: the Group Chief Operating Officer wasn't an employee. He was an independent contractor brought in to act as COO.

The relationship ended in April 2022 — and importantly, it was the COO who ended it. Shortly afterwards, the HR Manager’s anticipated promotion to a permanent Group HR role was put on hold. She believed this was personal payback for the breakup. The COO insisted it was a business decision.

From there, things deteriorated. She said his behaviour turned hostile. She raised a grievance, asked for an external mediator — but instead, management told her to sit down directly with the COO. After that meeting, the COO gathered statements from other employees complaining about her conduct. An independent investigator was appointed, recommended disciplinary action, and after an eight-day hearing, the employee was dismissed in June 2023.

Her case was that her dismissal was, at its heart, the fallout from a romantic relationship gone wrong — and therefore an automatically unfair dismissal linked to quid pro quo sexual harassment.

The Court had to untangle a few threads.

First, could the employer be held liable for harassment by the COO under section 60 of the Employment Equity Act? The Court said no — and this is key. Section 60 makes an employer liable for the conduct of its employees. Greeff was a contractor. The employee argued the new Harassment Code widened that net to cover contractors and other workplace participants. The Court disagreed. It held that notwithstanding the wider range of workplace participants whose conduct is covered by the Harassment Code, it was not persuaded that the wording of the Harassment Code extends the scope of employer liability in terms of section 60(3) of the EEA to include liability for the conduct of non-employees in the workplace. It further held that a code of good practice is a guideline. It cannot, on its own, create a brand-new form of statutory liability. That would take an amendment to the Act itself.

So the court concluded that Pioneer Fishing could not be held responsible under section 60 of the EEA for alleged acts of harassment committed by the COO, who was an independent contractor.

But the court did, however, go on to consider the plaintiff’s automatically unfair dismissal claim.

It held that Pioneer Fishing could be held directly liable as the employer if the plaintiff could prove that the employer made common cause with the COO and dismissed her in fulfilment of an intention on his part to have her dismissed on account of quid pro quo sexual harassment.

Let’s turn to the outcome. Did she win the case? The answer is no.

The case collapsed on one simple, stubborn fact: there was no sexual harassment to begin with. The Court pointed out that quid pro quo harassment means coercing someone into sexual advances — demanding sexual favours in exchange for job benefits, or punishing them for refusing.

None of that happened here. There were no unwanted advances. The COO ended the relationship, not the other way round. There was no evidence he tried to rekindle it, got rejected, and retaliated. As the judge put it, the facts couldn't be further removed from a genuine harassment case.

And the logic flows from there: if there was no harassment, her dismissal could not have been caused by resisting it. The automatically unfair dismissal claim was dismissed — with no order as to costs.

So what should employers actually take from this?

One — your liability for harassment under the EEA extends to employees, not independent contractors. The Harassment Code is broad in spirit, but it doesn't rewrite the statute.

Two — and this is the warning — you can still be directly liable if you let a third party drive a dismissal. If an employer becomes the instrument of someone else's grudge, the contractor distinction won't save you. Make sure every dismissal decision is genuinely your own, independently investigated and defensible on its merits.

Three — a soured consensual relationship is not, by itself, sexual harassment. The label matters, and the facts have to fit it.

Four — document your business rationale. The COO’s decisions survived scrutiny partly because there was a business explanation on record.

And five — handle complaints of harassment properly and in line with the Code of Good Practice.

A consensual relationship that ends badly is messy — but messy isn't the same as unlawful or unfair. And in employment law, that distinction is material.

That brings us to an end of this week’s episode. Thank you for joining us, we hope you 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 email me at wp@masconsulting.co.za.
Till next time, bye bye