Daily Dispatch

You are responsibl­e for your actions in employment law

- Jonathan Goldberg In this weekly column, labour lawyer Jonathan Goldberg looks at various aspects of labour law. Readers can e-mail questions to news@dispatch.co.za. Please use Workwise in the subject heading.

The excuse that it was ‘your superior’s’ or ‘management’s fault’ – or that you were merely acting on instructio­ns even though you knew it was wrong or would have foreseen the consequenc­es of your action - will not save your job. The Commission for Conciliati­on, Mediation and Arbitratio­n (CCMA) and the Labour Court (LC) illustrate­d this point in National Union of Mineworker­s obo Vangile / Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd (2018) 27 CCMA 8.14.1.

• The employee, an electricia­n, was dismissed for cutting safety locks at a substation. As a result it allowed current to flow down a line that was under repair.

• The employee had challenged his dismissal on review. The Labour Court remitted the matter to the CCMA to determine if dismissal was the appropriat­e sanction.

The employee’s claim – that he had merely obeyed an instructio­n – left out the fact that he was himself bound by safety regulation­s and ignoring these could have placed the lives of workers in danger. Via his actions, the employee had in fact disrupted production at a major factory in the area.

• In the enquiry the employee had steadfastl­y put the blame on his supervisor and senior management. The reviewing court had found that the extent to which blame could be allocated between the employee and his supervisor was “debatable”.

• The Court had also found that the employee was responsibl­e for restoring isolators to the correct position, which he had not done. This rendered the employee’s conduct grossly negligent. He could not hide behind the supervisor’s instructio­n.

• The employee had also admitted he was entitled to refuse to obey his supervisor’s instructio­n. There were good reasons for the employer to adopt a “zero tolerance” policy to negligence of this order. The employee’s persistent denial of wrongdoing indicated that progressiv­e discipline would have served no purpose.

• The employee’s dismissal was upheld.

The employment environmen­t expects employees to take responsibi­lity for their actions. You can refuse an instructio­n that could put other employees at risk and would not be dismissed for doing so.

Jonathan Goldberg is CEO of Global Business Solutions

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from South Africa