What if two employees fight, then forgive each other? Can a zero-tolerance assault policy still justify dismissal?

Good day everyone, and welcome to another discussion 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 Ross Simon from Maserumule Corporate Employment Law, and in today’s discussion we will be unpacking a question that many employers believe they have already answered:

What if two employees fight, then forgive each other? Can a zero-tolerance assault policy still justify dismissal?

Most employers would say yes. Assault is assault, the policy says dismissal, and that is the end of it. But a Labour Court judgment handed down in September 2026, involving DSV Solutions, shows that the answer is not that simple. Let’s get into it.

The facts

Mr Palmer was a pallet jack driver at DSV Solutions, working on the premises of DSV’s client, Ford. On 3 February 2022, he confronted a colleague about what that colleague had been saying about him to their co-workers, and kicked him in the stomach. The colleague reported it to their supervisor, and the matter went to HR.

That same evening, the two men sought each other out, apologised, and forgave one another. The colleague accepted the apology as being for the kick and understood it would not happen again. Palmer denied the kick, but asked for forgiveness anyway.

It was too late. Palmer was charged with assault and with bringing the company’s name into disrepute, found guilty, and dismissed.

The colleague was never sent to the clinic; the only physical sign was a dust mark on his reflector vest. And assault at DSV was rare.

The union, on behalf of Palmer referred an unfair dismissal dispute to the bargaining council. The commissioner did not go easy on Palmer. He found that the rule against assault was valid, that Palmer had in fact kicked his colleague, and that Palmer did not impress him as a witness.

But the commissioner then asked the second question the law requires: was dismissal the appropriate sanction? And here he said no. The incident was isolated. The two men had made peace. No injury was caused. Palmer had long service. And DSV had led no evidence as to why corrective discipline could not have been considered.

He ordered reinstatement, but with only partial backpay, deliberately, to mark the point that assault remains serious. DSV took the award on review. It argued that the commissioner had downplayed the seriousness of the assault, had placed too much weight on an apology that came without any admission or remorse, and had ignored DSV’s zero-tolerance approach.

The Labour Court’s Findings

The Labour Court was not persuaded on any of these three points.

On seriousness, the commissioner had expressly called the assault serious misconduct, all the more so on a client’s site, and the partial backpay showed he meant it.

On the apology, the Court accepted that remorse is a relevant factor when deciding sanction, but it is not a requirement. Both men had apologised, and the colleague had accepted it. The commissioner was entitled to give that weight.

On zero tolerance, the commissioner had not ignored the evidence. This is the heart of the case. It is the commissioner who must decide whether a dismissal is fair, and to find dismissal appropriate in every assault case simply because the employer has a zero-tolerance policy, whatever the circumstances, would be an abdication of that duty. Assault is serious, but it does not follow that every assault must be met with dismissal.

The review was dismissed.

Key Takeaways

Firstly— a zero-tolerance policy is not a substitute for a fairness enquiry. It carries weight, but the Labour Relations Act and the Code of Good Practice: Dismissal still require that dismissal be an appropriate sanction in the particular circumstances.

Secondly — the facts matter. Was the incident isolated? Was anyone injured? How long has the employee served? Did the parties make peace? None of these questions is answered by pointing to the policy. Thirdly — if you intend to argue that corrective discipline was not an option, lead evidence to that effect. That silence counted against DSV.

Lastly — an apology and reconciliation between colleagues will not erase the misconduct, but it is a relevant consideration that a commissioner may legitimately weigh. Assault remains serious misconduct, and nothing in this judgment changes that. But proving the misconduct is only the first half of the enquiry. The second half is justifying the sanction, and an employer who neglects it can still lose the case.

That brings us to the end of this week’s discussion. Thank you for joining us.

I hope you have found our discussion informative.

If you have any questions or comments, we would love to hear from you — you can find us on social media, or email me at ross@masconsulting.co.za.

Until next time — good-bye.