Podcasts
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)
In Abrahams v National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS). , the Labour Court found that an employee dismissed for emailing evidence of alleged corruption to his personal account was, in reality, dismissed for making a protected disclosure. Learn the key lessons on whistleblower protection, automatically unfair dismissals, and employer retaliation.
– 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 powerful episode of our “What if” we break down the Labour Court judgment in G4S Cash Solutions (Pty) Ltd v NUMSA obo Mosinyane. When nine ATM custodians were dismissed for gross negligence after R1.3 million in shortages, the employer brought brand-new technical evidence, video footage, third-party verifications, audit records, and compelling statistical proof at arbitration
– 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 discussion in our “What If” series, we unpack a critical Labour Appeal Court decision in the matter of Bakhresa SA (Pty) Ltd v Roshelle Jaipal & Others (DA09/2025) ZALAC (24 March 2026). We dive into the case of an employee dismissed during an unprotected strike for sending a WhatsApp message stating management “don’t have the balls” and for questioning the authenticity of a court interdict in an email.
– 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)
Drawing on the recent Case, dismissal for a provocative WhatsApp status is not automatically fair. The key test is proportionality — employers must show real or reasonably foreseeable harm, not merely offence or embarrassment. Context matters: existing tensions, prior instructions, and the employee’s response afterwards all influence the appropriate sanction. Even where conduct is deliberate and provocative, a final written warning may still be the fairer outcome.
– 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)