Dismissal for publicly and repeatedly insulting manager
In CCI Call Centres (Pty) Ltd v Pinn [2025] 8 BLLR 781 (LAC), an employee who was a management accountant was dismissed for gross insubordination, gross insolence and inappropriate workplace conduct. The employee had been responsible for creating monthly cost codes as part of his duties and responsibilities but he declined to do this after he became unhappy about not being granted a salary increase and bonus. He was sent an e-mail by his superior instructing him to create the codes but refused to comply with the instruction notwithstanding the potential risks to the business and sent an e-mail copying in the superior’s subordinates and attacking the superior’s integrity. He was suspended and dismissed after a disciplinary inquiry.
The employee alleged that the dismissal was unfair and referred it to arbitration. The arbitrator found that there had been gross insolence as the employee had repeatedly and publicly insulted his line manager. The employee was accordingly guilty of the charges against him but the arbitrator found that the sanction of dismissal was too harsh in the circumstances and, therefore, the dismissal was substantively unfair. It was found that the primary remedies of reinstatement or re- employment were not appropriate in the circumstances but the employer was ordered to pay one month’s remuneration as compensation. On review, the Labour Court (LC) found that the employee was entitled to reinstatement and substituted the award with retrospective reinstatement. This was on the basis that the manager had conceded under cross-examination that the relationship could be mended.
On appeal, the Labour Appeal Court (LAC) had to determine whether the LC applied the correct review test. In this regard, the LC was required to determine whether the arbitrator’s decision to order one month’s remuneration as compensation was a decision that a reasonable decision-maker could have made on the available evidence. The LAC found that the reasonableness test had been ignored and that instead there had been a fresh determination of the arbitration proceedings which was an error. Furthermore, it was found that the order of retrospective reinstatement did not take into account the fact that the employee was guilty of serious misconduct which was indicative of a complete breakdown in the trust relationship. Therefore, reinstatement was not appropriate. Instead, the LC based its finding on a minor aspect of the superior’s evidence under cross-examination that the superior would do his best to mend the relationship if the employee was reinstated. It was found that based on the evidence there was a breach of the trust relationship and it was, therefore, not unreasonable for the arbitrator to find that a continued employment relationship would be intolerable.
The appeal was accordingly upheld.
Monique Jefferson