In the case of Medici Energy (Pty) Ltd v Bennet NO and Others (C89/2023) [2025] ZALCCT 34, the Labour Court had to determine whether the dismissal of a remote worker who refused to return to the office, after being instructed to do so by her employer, was fair.
In this case, the company employed the employee as a sales executive and permitted her to work from home for more than two years before her dismissal. This arrangement was put in place because of her son’s autoimmune disease.
On Friday, 10 June 2022, the employee was instructed by the company to return to the office the following Monday. She did not return to the office, thereby failing to follow her employer’s instructions. The company proceeded to institute disciplinary action against the employee, and she was ultimately dismissed on 28 July 2022 for gross insubordination for failing to follow a lawful and reasonable instruction to return to the office.
The employee challenged the fairness of her dismissal in the CCMA, and the Commissioner found in her favour. The Commissioner held that although the instruction may have been lawful, it was unreasonable and capricious. Aggrieved by the Commissioner’s finding, the company approached the Labour Court to review and set aside the arbitration award. The company sought to challenge the reasonableness of the Commissioner’s finding.
The Labour Court found that the Commissioner’s finding was justified as the employee was expected to return to the office, despite having been allowed to work from home due to her son’s medical condition, with very little notice and for no justifiable reason. The Court accordingly dismissed the review application and upheld the Commissioner’s finding that the employee’s dismissal was unfair.
It is clear from this case that employers are cautioned from merely issuing an instruction to a remote worker to return to the office and then instituting disciplinary proceedings for a failure to comply with the instruction. An employer’s decision to change an existing work-from-home arrangement should thus be consultative, justifiable and reasonable.
Disclaimer: This article is the personal opinion/view of the author(s) and does not necessarily present the views of the firm. The content is provided for information only and should not be seen as an exact or complete exposition of the law. Accordingly, no reliance should be placed on the content for any reason whatsoever, and no action should be taken on the basis thereof unless its application and accuracy have been confirmed by a legal advisor. The firm and author(s) cannot be held liable for any prejudice or damage resulting from action taken based on this content without further written confirmation by the author(s).
