Podcasts
In this episode we unpack the Labour Appeal Court’s decision in Qomoyi v Namaqua Wines, handed down in April 2026. The case highlights why context, history, the objective test, the employer’s onus, and proportionality of sanction matter when dealing with race-related misconduct in the workplace.
A valuable reminder for employers: inflammatory words cannot be assessed in isolation — context is critical.
– 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)
Dismissal for off-duty drunk driving is not automatically justified. In IMATU obo Sauls v City of Cape Town & Others, the Labour Court found the dismissal unfair because the employer could not prove a clear link between the employee’s off-duty conduct and his work. Employers must consider the nature of the employee’s job, the impact on the workplace, consistency in disciplinary action, and mitigating factors before deciding on dismissal.
– 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)
A lunchtime gathering of employees singing, dancing, and carrying placards led to their dismissal for alleged illegal picketing. This Labour Court judgment in the case AMCU obo Sebalela Agreement and 9 Others v Fraser Alexander (Pty) Ltd. highlights the importance of evidence, fair procedure, and accurately distinguishing workplace misconduct from innocent conduct before imposing the ultimate sanction of dismissal.
– 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)
According to the case of Solidarity v Cape Peninsula University of Technology, if an employer dismisses a medically incapacitated employee without first investigating reasonable accommodation—such as alternative duties, adapted work, or medical boarding—the dismissal may be substantively unfair. The employer must show it properly assessed the employee’s medical condition and explored all reasonable alternatives before treating dismissal as a last resort. Failure to do so can result in compensation being awarded to the employee.
– 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)
A single emoji probably won’t cost you your job on its own—but in the wrong context, it can. The case Mpahlwa v Public Health and Social Development Sectoral Bargaining Council and Others shows that workplace emails, messages, and even emojis are treated as part of your conduct. When communication is disrespectful, threatening, or combined with other misconduct, it can have serious consequences, highlighting the importance of professionalism, context, and honesty in every workplace interaction.,
– 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)
In Masimla v Pioneer Fishing (Pty) Ltd and Others , the Labour Court considered whether a dismissal following the end of a consensual workplace relationship amounted to quid pro quo harassment and retaliation. The judgment provides important guidance on the limits of harassment claims, the role of independent contractors, and the need for employers to ensure that dismissal decisions remain fair, objective, and free from personal influence.
– 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)