Good day everyone and welcome to the last discussion for 2025. In our What If series, we will bring you insights in the format of a what if question on the ever evolving landscape of employment law. I'm Ross Simon from Maserumule Corporate Employment Law And in today's discussion we're unpacking “what if workplace fraternization becomes inappropriate - will dismissal be justified?”
Workplace relationships aren't unusual. Employees often spend most of their days together and attraction is simply part of human nature. And importantly, South African labour law doesn't contain any specific provisions that regulate workplace fraternization. Employers can't simply ban romance outright. It would be unrealistic, and in many cases it will interfere with employees constitutional rights to privacy, dignity, and freedom of association. But although the law doesn't prohibit workplace relationships, it regulates what happens when those relationships breakdown. Once conduct becomes inappropriate, unwanted, or crosses A boundary, the employer is expected to act.
A recent case provides A textbook example of how this can unfold. In Mediclinic Nelspruit (Pty) Ltd v Shiba and Others, The Labour Court dealt with the fallout of a failed relationship between an HR business partner, Shiba, and his colleague. The relationship ended, but Shiba didn't accept that. He continued contacting the colleague after she asked him to stop. When the colleague blocked him on a cell phone, he used workplace landlines. He visited a workstation uninvited. He continued to pursue her after the colleague obtained a protection order. And he ignored a very clear instruction for management to cease all communications at work.
He was dismissed for unprofessional conduct and for using his HR position to intimidate the colleague. Shiba challenged his dismissal and the CCMA reinstated him, but the Labour Court overturned the award and confirmed that the dismissal was fair, both procedurally and substantively, This case is a reminder of how quickly a failed romance can become misconduct. Once a relationship becomes unwanted, it can easily slide into harassment.
The Code of Good Practice on the Prevention and Elimination of Harassment in the Workplace defines harassment as any unwanted conduct which impairs dignity, which creates a hostile and intimidating work environment for one or more employees, or is calculated to or has the effect of inducing submission by actual or threatened adverse consequences, and is related to more, one or more grounds in respect of which discrimination is prohibited. In terms of section 6, subsection one of the Employment Equity Act, there's no requirement for aggression, threats or shouting, persistent pursuit, repeated messages, showing up uninvited. Those are forms of harassment too and where power balance exists, as it did in this case, the risks escalate significantly. The broader point stands -workplace relationships involving differences in power are inherently risky. They are also costly, too. When a relationship turns sour, the employer almost always carries the burden. There's reputational harm, the need to investigate and appoint legal counsel, interruptions to operations, conflict in teams, misuse of managerial and HR time, and sometimes even formal grievances and litigation. What begins as a private relationship may quickly become an organizational problem. Yet despite these risks, the law provides no detailed regulatory framework for workplace romance, and courts have made it clear employers cannot police emotions.
In the Rustenburg Platinum Mines vs UASA judgement, the Labour Court noted that feelings and relationships are part of human nature and employers must tread carefully not to infringe rights. So if employers can't forbid relationships, what can they do? The answer is to regulate conduct, not the relationship itself. The most effective tool is a clear and well designed workplace relationship policy. Such a policy may require disclosure where one partner has authority or influence over the other. Restrict intimate relationships within reporting lines, set behavioural expectations and outline what happens if such a relationship develops. Disclosure and transparency will help employers prevent conflicts of interest, manage risk, and protect all parties involved.
The key take away is this. If workplace fraternisation becomes romantic in a reporting line context, or inappropriate, persistent, unwanted or abusive, dismissal can absolutely be justified. The Medi Clinic case confirms this, subject to the rule that each case should be judged on its merits. When conduct impairs dignity, breaches boundaries, ignores clear instructions, or leverages power, an employer is entitled to act and dismissal may be the appropriate sanction.
That brings us an end of this week's discussion and also our final discussion for 2025. Thank you for joining us throughout the year. I hope you have found these discussions informative and valuable. If you have any questions or comments, we'd love to hear from you. You can find us on social media or you can e-mail me at ross@masconsulting.co.za. We'll be back in 2026 with more insights and updates. Until then, enjoy the break, stay safe, and we'll see you in the new year. Bye bye.
