In the recent Labour Court decision of Medici Energy (Pty) Ltd v Bennet NO and Others (LC) (unreported case no C89/2023, 21 May 2025, Leslie AJ), the court was asked to consider whether an employee’s dismissal for refusing to return to office was fair in circumstances where she had worked remotely for more than two years.
Background
Ms Roux, a sales executive at Medici Energy, had worked from home in Paarl since the onset of COVID-19. The arrangement was agreed upon due to her son’s auto-immune condition and continued well beyond the pandemic.
In May 2022, she attempted to lodge a grievance against two managers and requested the employer’s grievance forms. Her request was ignored. When she followed up in June 2022, the company responded not with the forms but with a sudden instruction: she was to resume office-based work the following Monday.
Roux refused to comply, leading to disciplinary proceedings and her eventual dismissal for gross insubordination.
CCMA Proceedings
At arbitration, the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) found that the order to return to the office was retaliatory. The commissioner reasoned:
- A standing agreement allowed Roux to work remotely.
- No legitimate business reason was advanced for abruptly ending this arrangement.
- The timing, immediately after she signaled her intention to lodge a grievance, pointed to retaliation rather than operational necessity.
- The instruction was issued on minimal notice, rendering compliance unreasonable.
The commissioner held the dismissal to be both substantively and procedurally unfair and awarded Roux eight months’ compensation.
Review Before the Labour Court
The employer sought to have the award set aside, contending that the CCMA’s decision was unreasonable. The review, however, was unopposed.
The Labour Court carefully considered whether the commissioner had erred. It upheld the award, finding that the commissioner’s conclusions were firmly supported by the evidence. Key considerations included:
- Pre-existing arrangement: The remote-work agreement had not been shown to harm business operations.
- Flawed justification: The reference to declining COVID-19 cases was irrelevant and unsupported.
- Prejudicial timing: The demand to return to office directly followed Roux’s grievance request, creating a strong inference of victimisation.
- Predetermined dismissal: Evidence showed the employer had already resolved to terminate her employment before convening the disciplinary hearing.
On procedural fairness, the court endorsed the CCMA’s finding that Roux was denied a fair hearing. She was not provided with full details of the allegations against her, and her chosen representative was unfairly excluded on the basis that he might be a witness.
Outcome
The Labour Court confirmed that the CCMA’s award was reasonable and refused to interfere. The review application was dismissed, with no order as to costs.
Significance
This case highlights that even where an instruction is technically lawful, it must still be reasonable and fairly implemented. Employers cannot weaponise workplace instructions to punish employees for asserting their rights, such as lodging grievances. The decision also reinforces that long-standing work arrangements, particularly remote work agreements, cannot be withdrawn arbitrarily or without proper justification.
