Can you be dismissed for not wearing a face mask at work?

“I’m an HR manager and also responsible for health & safety at my workplace. Lately I’ve noticed an increasing number of employees failing to keep their Covid masks on at work, despite regular warnings. My employer is very worried about this and has asked if we are allowed to dismiss employees that blatantly fail to adhere to our Covid-19 protocol of wearing a face mask. Not wearing a face mask is in my view very serious, but dismissing someone is also a serious step. Can someone be dismissed for not wearing their face mask?”

Our Labour Court has recently confirmed that the answer to this question is “yes” you can be dismissed for not wearing a face mask at work. As always, the facts of each case and the severity of the transgression will need to be taken into account to determine whether dismissal is the appropriate sanction, but our courts view dismissal as an option if justified and appropriate.

In the case of Eskort Limited v Mogotsi and others an employee went for a Covid-19 test and failed to inform his employer of this. During this period the employee came to work and walked around without a mask and had physical contact with other employees. It then also transpired that the employee had tested positive for Covid-19. The Court viewed the employee’s conduct as inconsiderate and nonchalant and that the employee’s conduct was extremely irresponsible and reckless. The dismissal was held to be fair and an appropriate sanction in the circumstances.

This confirms that dismissal can be an appropriate option for the failure to wear a face mask at work, bearing in mind that the necessary substantive and procedurally fair disciplinary steps must be followed by the employer.

October 12, 2021
Section 8C explained: Tax tips for employee share schemes

Section 8C explained: Tax tips for employee share schemes

Employee share schemes are often introduced to reward, retain, or align employees with long-term business growth. However, under section 8C of the Income Tax Act 58 of 1962 (the “Income Tax Act”), these arrangements can create significant and unexpected tax liabilities for employees when equity instruments vest. This article explains how section 8C operates, what qualifies as an “equity instrument,” and why careful structuring of share schemes is essential to avoid punitive tax outcomes.

The costly consequences of backdated share transactions

The costly consequences of backdated share transactions

The South African legislative framework regards backdated shares as a suspicious and illegal practice, as it arises when a share issue or transfer is recorded as having occurred on an earlier date than the actual transaction. While backdating may be viewed as an administrative oversight, the consequences may constitute compliance risk, serious misconduct on directors, beneficial owners and compliance officers who authorise the backdating of share transactions. This is because backdated shares may manipulate the timing of funds, obscure the source of funds, and distort a company’s beneficial ownership structure.

Tax transparency matters: Are your deals reportable?

Tax transparency matters: Are your deals reportable?

Some deals come with hidden reporting duties. Find out when your transactions could trigger SARS disclosure rules, and how to stay compliant. You may have heard the term “reportable arrangement” in tax conversations around commercial transactions. It sounds technical, and it is, but at its core, it’s about transparency. The South African Revenue Service (“SARS”) seeks information on certain transactions that could be used to avoid or reduce tax. If you enter a reportable arrangement, you may be legally required to report it. Failure to comply can result in significant penalties.

Sign up to our newsletter

Pin It on Pinterest