INTRODUCTION
When does a resignation become legally binding? Can an employee who verbally resigns with an apologetic chocolate bar later claim they were unfairly dismissed? This very question came before the Labour Court in Vericred Collections (Pty) Ltd v Moloto and Others. At the heart of the dispute was whether an employee who had expressed a clear intention to leave for a competitor was in fact dismissed when asked to leave immediately without serving her notice period.
The Labour Court, in a thorough and reasoned judgment, ruled decisively: there was no dismissal, only a resignation. The employee’s conduct left no ambiguity as to her intention, and the company’s actions did not convert the resignation into a dismissal. This case provides valuable guidance to both employers and employees on the legal meaning of resignation and the consequences of how such departures are managed.
– Ross Simon (Associate, BCom (Law) LLB, Post Graduate Diploma in Labour Law Practice),WP Moolman (Partner: Equity, LLB) , Ulrich Stander (Managing Partner & Director, BA LLB LLM IRDP)
SUMMARY OF THE FACTS
The employee had been employed by Vericred Collections (Pty) Ltd as a Performance Manager since 2018. On the morning of 18 January 2024, she informed her supervisor that she had accepted a new position with a direct competitor of the company. The employee explained that her new role would begin on 29 January 2024.
Instead of providing the required one month notice in terms of her contract, she offered just over a week, expressing regret for the short notice, but explaining that she did not want to lose the opportunity. The employee became emotional during this conversation and handed her manager a chocolate bar with the words “I AM SORRY” printed on it.
Later the same day, Vericred’s management convened a meeting at which it was announced that the employee had resigned. The employee was present and raised no objection. Given that the employee was heading to a direct competitor, the Company’s managing director considered her a high commercial risk. The employee was instructed to leave the premises immediately, and the Company undertook to pay her in lieu of the unworked portion of her notice.
The next day, the employee began raising questions. She emailed the payroll administrator asking for confirmation that her salary and annual leave pay would not be affected if she did not serve her notice. She delayed submitting a resignation letter and stated she wanted written confirmation about her pay before sending it. When the Company replied that she had given insufficient notice and that 14 days’ pay would be deducted, she responded with unease, asking whether her being sent home made it a dismissal, and indicating she might seek advice.
Shortly thereafter, the employee referred a dispute to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA), claiming that she had been unfairly dismissed.
THE EMPLOYEE’S CLAIM: WAS IT A DISMISSAL?
The employee’s version before the CCMA shifted. In her referral form, she claimed that she had informed her manager of her intention to resign and serve notice, but that she was instead told to leave immediately, implying she was dismissed. At arbitration, her account shifted further: the employee claimed that she had merely told a friend she had a new job, and that the Company dismissed her upon hearing about it.
The Labour Court found these claims inconsistent and unconvincing. The employee’s own emails and conduct immediately after 18 January showed that the employee had clearly communicated her intention to resign; she expected to receive her full salary and leave pay despite leaving early; she never claimed to have been dismissed until after the Company indicated it would deduct notice pay and she began work at her new employer on the exact date she had disclosed.
The Court also found her “dismissal” claim was entirely reactive, emerging only after she learned of the financial implications of leaving without serving notice.
THE LABOUR COURT’S FINDINGS
The Court held that there was no ambiguity about the employee’s intent to resign. It reaffirmed that a resignation is a unilateral act effective once the employee communicates an unequivocal intention not to continue the employment relationship.
While a resignation is typically formalised in writing, the law does not require a resignation letter for the resignation to be valid. In this case, the employee’s verbal notice, her emotional farewell, the chocolate bar, and her stated start date with the new employer all pointed to a final and deliberate decision to leave.
Importantly, the Company’ s instruction for her to leave the premises immediately did not convert the resignation into a dismissal. Employers are within their rights to waive the employee’s notice period and pay in lieu, especially where there is a legitimate business concern such as a move to a competitor. The employee’s own correspondence made it clear that she recognised she had resigned and was negotiating the terms of her exit, not contesting it.
The Court also noted that the employee had already commenced her new role on 29 January 2024, just as she had planned. This action reinforced the conclusion that she had no intention of returning to her old job, nor did she consider herself to have been terminated against her will.
WHY THE DISMISSAL CLAIM FAILED
Several factors undermined the employee’s unfair dismissal claim:
Her own version of events changed. At different points, she said she told her manager she had resigned; that she was dismissed after telling a friend; and that she had intended to serve notice. She acted as if she had resigned: Asking whether her pay would be affected by not serving notice confirmed that the employee saw herself as having resigned.
The employee took no steps to resume employment: She did not object at the time of being sent home, did not demand reinstatement, and did not allege dismissal until days later. She started work at a new employer: This was entirely consistent with a voluntary resignation.
The Court concluded that the employee’s allegations of dismissal were not only unsubstantiated but also misleading. It found that the CCMA had lacked jurisdiction, as no dismissal had occurred.
CONCLUSION
The judgment reinforces an important legal truth: resignation is a matter of intention, not form. The employee’s verbal notice, her emotional farewell, and her immediate commencement at a competitor clearly demonstrated her intent to end the employment relationship. Her later dissatisfaction with how that exit was managed particularly being required to leave immediately did not transform her resignation into a dismissal.
In employment law, once an employee clearly communicates an intention to resign, the resignation is effective. No acceptance by the employer is required, and even in the absence of a resignation letter, a clear verbal resignation backed by conduct will suffice. What matters is not whether the resignation was written, but whether a reasonable person would conclude that the employee intended to terminate the relationship. Employers, while not required to accept a resignation, are advised to act with clarity and consistency. It is best practice to document resignation conversations, confirm the resignation and departure details in writing, and clarify payment and notice arrangements up front.
Ultimately, the legal focus remains on intention not the formality of a letter, nor the emotional tone of the conversation. In this case, the employee’s own words and actions left no room for doubt.
