Podcasts
In this case dismissal was fair. In Lebi v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others, the Labour Court held that an operations manager who swore at a subordinate and physically turned her back by her shoulders as she walked away was fairly dismissed for abusive language and assault. No injury or intent to harm is needed for assault, and provocation, the lack of a zero-tolerance policy and inconsistency arguments all failed because the misconduct was serious.
– 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)
Yes, a zero-tolerance assault policy does not automatically justify dismissal. In DSV Solutions v NUM obo Palmer and Others, the Labour Court upheld reinstatement after finding dismissal too harsh, despite proven misconduct. The employee’s long service, the isolated nature of the incident, the absence of injury and the colleagues’ subsequent reconciliation all informed the fairness of the sanction.
– 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 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)