Engage Human Capital Solutions - Pty Ltd

12/10/2026

𝗖𝗔𝗦𝗘 𝗟𝗔𝗪 𝗨𝗣𝗗𝗔𝗧𝗘

“𝗜’𝗠 𝗔 𝗠𝗔𝗡 𝗜𝗡 𝗠𝗬 𝗢𝗪𝗡 𝗛𝗢𝗨𝗦𝗘𝗛𝗢𝗟𝗗”
𝗕𝗨𝗧 𝗔𝗧 𝗪𝗢𝗥𝗞, 𝗪𝗛𝗢 𝗥𝗘𝗔𝗟𝗟𝗬 𝗛𝗔𝗦 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗔𝗨𝗧𝗛𝗢𝗥𝗜𝗧𝗬?

There is a particular kind of disciplinary problem that I have seen repeatedly over many years in Labour Relations. It normally starts with something quite ordinary. A manager gives an instruction, questions an employee about something that has happened, or calls the employee into the office to deal with a complaint. Before long, however, the actual workplace issue has disappeared completely and the argument has become about something else entirely: 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝘁.

“You are disrespecting me.”
“You are embarrassing me.”
“You can’t speak to me like that.”
“You can’t tell me what to do.”

Once the conversation moves into that territory, a relatively simple management issue can very quickly become a confrontation about status, pride and authority.

A recent Labour Appeal Court judgment involving a SASSA employee is a very good illustration of exactly this.

𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗪𝗢𝗥𝗗𝗦 𝗧𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗖𝗔𝗨𝗚𝗛𝗧 𝗠𝗬 𝗔𝗧𝗧𝗘𝗡𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡

The employee, a Senior Grants Administrator, had dealt with a member of the public whose social grant application was declined. She returned to the SASSA office the following day with her niece and complained about the manner in which she had been dealt with.

The employee’s manager called him into his office to discuss the complaint. The employee did not want to explain himself in front of the two women and asked that they be sent outside. His manager initially wanted the matter discussed in their presence.

It was during this interaction that the employee accused his manager of not respecting him and said that he was “also a man in his own household”.

That sentence immediately stood out to me because, in a few words, it captures a problem we see surprisingly often in the workplace.

The employee stops hearing, “My manager is asking me to explain what happened,” and starts hearing, “This person is challenging me, embarrassing me or diminishing my status.”

Once that happens, people sometimes stop responding to what is actually being asked of them and start responding instead to what they 𝗳𝗲𝗲𝗹 the interaction says about them personally.

And that is where an ordinary management issue can become a serious disciplinary problem.

𝗕𝗘𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗠𝗔𝗡𝗔𝗚𝗘𝗗 𝗜𝗦 𝗡𝗢𝗧 𝗔𝗨𝗧𝗢𝗠𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗖𝗔𝗟𝗟𝗬 𝗕𝗘𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗗𝗜𝗦𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗣𝗘𝗖𝗧𝗘𝗗

Let me be very clear about this. Employees are entitled to dignity in the workplace. They are entitled to be spoken to properly and managers do not have licence to humiliate, bully, threaten or abuse employees simply because they occupy a more senior position.

But the opposite is also true. An employee cannot label every uncomfortable interaction with management as “disrespect”.

A manager is sometimes going to question you. A manager may correct you, tell you that your work is not up to standard, ask you to account for something that has happened or issue an instruction that you do not particularly like.

None of that, by itself, amounts to bullying or humiliation.

Sometimes it is simply called 𝗯𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗴𝗲𝗱.

And I think this is where the distinction becomes important. There is nothing wrong with an employee saying, “I disagree with the way this is being handled,” or “I would prefer that we discuss this privately.” There is also nothing wrong with lodging a grievance if a manager genuinely behaves improperly.

What an employee cannot do is decide that because they 𝗳𝗲𝗲𝗹 disrespected, the manager no longer has authority over them.

𝗧𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗜𝗦 𝗪𝗛𝗘𝗥𝗘 𝗧𝗛𝗜𝗦 𝗖𝗔𝗦𝗘 𝗘𝗦𝗖𝗔𝗟𝗔𝗧𝗘𝗗

The facts in the SASSA matter became considerably more serious. The evidence accepted by the Commissioner was that the manager eventually agreed to allow the two women to leave so that he and the employee could speak privately. As the manager opened the door for them, the employee moved towards the doorway and a physical altercation followed.

The situation did not end there.

The manager subsequently went to the employee’s workstation and instructed him to return to the office so that the matter could be dealt with. The employee refused.

The dispute ultimately resulted in disciplinary action and dismissal. The CCMA found the dismissal substantively and procedurally fair, the Labour Court refused to interfere with that award, and the Labour Appeal Court ultimately dismissed the employee’s appeal.

What started as a complaint from a member of the public had therefore turned into something far more serious: a challenge to managerial authority, refusal to comply and physical confrontation.

𝗧𝗛𝗘𝗥𝗘 𝗜𝗦 𝗔 𝗗𝗜𝗙𝗙𝗘𝗥𝗘𝗡𝗖𝗘 𝗕𝗘𝗧𝗪𝗘𝗘𝗡 𝗗𝗜𝗦𝗔𝗚𝗥𝗘𝗘𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗗𝗘𝗙𝗬𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗔𝗨𝗧𝗛𝗢𝗥𝗜𝗧𝗬

This distinction is critical from a Labour Relations perspective.

Not every disagreement with a manager is insubordination. Not every rude or emotional response is gross insubordination, and employers should be very careful not to use that charge simply because an employee has argued with a supervisor.

But an employment relationship cannot function if every employee is entitled to decide for themselves whether they personally accept the authority of the person managing them.

There has to be a chain of command. There has to be accountability. Somebody has to be entitled to allocate work, set standards, investigate complaints and give lawful and reasonable instructions.

That does not take away anybody’s dignity.

It is simply part of the employment relationship.

At home, you may very well be the person in charge. You may run your household, support your family, lead your community or be the person everybody comes to for advice. None of that changes simply because you report to somebody at work.

But when you enter the workplace, you enter an employment relationship in which legitimate managerial authority exists.

𝗔 𝗪𝗢𝗥𝗗 𝗢𝗙 𝗖𝗔𝗨𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝗧𝗢 𝗘𝗠𝗣𝗟𝗢𝗬𝗘𝗥𝗦

Employers must be equally careful not to oversimplify these cases.

Do not see an argument with a manager and immediately charge “gross insubordination”. The charge has to fit the actual conduct.

You need to establish whether there was a clear instruction, whether it was lawful and reasonable, whether the employee understood what was required, whether there was a deliberate refusal to comply, and importantly, whether the conduct amounted to a genuine challenge to managerial authority.

The seriousness of the conduct, the surrounding circumstances and the effect on the employment relationship all matter.

I have seen many cases over the years where an employer has a perfectly legitimate disciplinary issue, but weakens its own case by charging the wrong offence or presenting the evidence badly.

That is why the distinction between insolence, insubordination and gross insubordination is not merely academic. It can determine whether your dismissal ultimately survives scrutiny at the CCMA.

𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗕𝗜𝗚𝗚𝗘𝗥 𝗟𝗘𝗦𝗦𝗢𝗡

For employees, the lesson is simple: do not confuse managerial authority with disrespect.

You can disagree with your manager. You can raise concerns. You can insist on being treated with dignity and you can challenge genuinely improper conduct through the appropriate channels.

But feeling offended does not automatically entitle you to refuse to be managed.

For employers, the lesson is equally important. When an employee challenges authority, deal with the facts carefully. Investigate properly, formulate the charge correctly and make sure that what you allege is what you can actually prove.

So yes, you may very well be “a man in your own household”.

𝗕𝘂𝘁 𝗮𝘁 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸, 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝘂𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆?

The answer is not about ego, status or who is more important.

It is about understanding the employment relationship, and understanding where legitimate managerial authority begins and ends.

𝗖𝗔𝗦𝗘:
Ndaba v South African Social Security Agency and Others
[2026] ZALAC 36

𝗘𝗡𝗚𝗔𝗚𝗘 𝗛𝗨𝗠𝗔𝗡 𝗖𝗔𝗣𝗜𝗧𝗔𝗟 𝗦𝗢𝗟𝗨𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡𝗦

Practical HR and Labour Relations solutions for South African employers.

07/10/2026

Did you miss this episode of The Workplace with Nolene? Here it is on Spotify:
https://open.spotify.com/episode/3001J6lANEAGrFgGAbrUvn?si=5YgeybHNTpuvi2JIuUGizw&utm_source=copy-link

07/10/2026

Did you miss this episode on 28 September? Here it is on Spotify:
https://open.spotify.com/episode/3OcK8O3EluMn7kG4OeTQXh?si=ca7TtuYtSdWeWOlaCfm2yQ&utm_source=copy-link

07/10/2026

𝗖𝗔𝗡 𝗬𝗢𝗨 𝗙𝗜𝗥𝗘 𝗔𝗡 𝗘𝗠𝗣𝗟𝗢𝗬𝗘𝗘 𝗙𝗢𝗥 𝗦𝗔𝗬𝗜𝗡𝗚 “𝗦𝗖𝗥𝗘𝗪 𝗬𝗢𝗨”?

Your employee is angry.

You are in the middle of a workplace confrontation. Things are getting heated. You give an instruction.

The employee looks at you and says:

“𝗦𝗰𝗿𝗲𝘄 𝘆𝗼𝘂.”

You ask:

“𝗘𝘅𝗰𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗺𝗲?”

And instead of backing down, the employee repeats it.

“𝗬𝗼𝘂 𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗱 𝗺𝗲. 𝗦𝗰𝗿𝗲𝘄 𝘆𝗼𝘂.”

Can you dismiss them?

A Labour Court judgment suggests that, in the right circumstances, the answer may be 𝗬𝗘𝗦.

But — and this is important — 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘀𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗹𝘆 𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗲𝗲 𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗮 𝘀𝘄𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗱.

𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗖𝗔𝗦𝗘

In 𝗝𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗰𝗸𝗲𝗿 𝘃 𝗦𝗔 𝗠𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗘𝗱𝘂𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗙𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗡𝗣𝗖 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗢𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝘀, the employee worked as a fundraiser.

After arriving late for work, she became involved in a heated confrontation with the CEO.

What followed was not simply one rude remark.

According to the evidence accepted at arbitration, the employee refused an instruction to sit down during the discussion, told the CEO that he could not tell her what to do, refused initially to leave when she was suspended, refused to accept a written warning and continued the confrontation in the open-plan office in front of other employees.

She then told the CEO:

“𝗦𝗰𝗿𝗲𝘄 𝘆𝗼𝘂.”

When the CEO responded, “Excuse me?”, she repeated it.

The employee was subsequently dismissed for gross misconduct involving 𝗶𝗻𝘀𝗼𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘂𝗯𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻.

The CCMA found the dismissal fair.

She approached the Labour Court seeking to have the arbitration award reviewed and set aside.

The Court did not interfere with that finding.

𝗕𝗨𝗧 𝗜𝗦 𝗦𝗪𝗘𝗔𝗥𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗔𝗧 𝗬𝗢𝗨𝗥 𝗕𝗢𝗦𝗦 𝗔𝗨𝗧𝗢𝗠𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗖𝗔𝗟𝗟𝗬 𝗜𝗡𝗦𝗨𝗕𝗢𝗥𝗗𝗜𝗡𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡?

No.

And this is where employers need to be careful.

There is a difference between 𝗶𝗻𝘀𝗼𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 and 𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘂𝗯𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻.

In simple terms:

𝗜𝗻𝘀𝗼𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝘁.

An employee may be rude, cheeky, argumentative, sarcastic or disrespectful without necessarily committing insubordination.

𝗜𝗻𝘀𝘂𝗯𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗴𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗳𝘂𝗿𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿.

It involves a wilful and serious disregard of the employer's authority or a lawful and reasonable instruction.

Importantly, insubordination does not always require an employee to say:

“𝗜 𝗿𝗲𝗳𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗼𝗯𝗲𝘆 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻.”

Conduct itself can amount to insubordination where it represents a 𝗱𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗯𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗴𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝘂𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆.

The Labour Court confirmed that insolent conduct can cross the line into insubordination where it becomes sufficiently serious, persistent and defiant.

𝗦𝗢 𝗪𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗠𝗔𝗗𝗘 𝗧𝗛𝗜𝗦 𝗖𝗔𝗦𝗘 𝗗𝗜𝗙𝗙𝗘𝗥𝗘𝗡𝗧?

It was the 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗲𝘅𝘁.

The Court did not look at the words “screw you” in isolation.

It looked at the employee's conduct during the entire incident.

There had already been repeated resistance to the CEO's authority. The confrontation had spilled out into an area where other employees were present. The employee publicly directed the remark at the most senior person in the organisation.

And perhaps most importantly, when challenged about what she had said, she did not withdraw it.

She 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝘁.

The Court found that, in those circumstances, telling the CEO “screw you” in front of other employees and repeating it could reasonably be regarded as a 𝗦𝗘𝗥𝗜𝗢𝗨𝗦 𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗪𝗜𝗟𝗙𝗨𝗟 𝗖𝗛𝗔𝗟𝗟𝗘𝗡𝗚𝗘 𝗧𝗢 𝗔𝗨𝗧𝗛𝗢𝗥𝗜𝗧𝗬.

𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗟𝗘𝗦𝗦𝗢𝗡 𝗙𝗢𝗥 𝗘𝗠𝗣𝗟𝗢𝗬𝗘𝗥𝗦

𝗗𝗼𝗻’𝘁 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝘄𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗱.

𝗗𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗱𝘂𝗰𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗲𝘅𝘁.

An employee swearing during a moment of frustration is not automatically guilty of gross insubordination and is certainly not automatically dismissible.

Before deciding how serious the misconduct is, consider questions such as:

• Was the employee simply rude, or were they deliberately challenging managerial authority?
• Was a lawful and reasonable instruction being refused?
• Was the behaviour persistent?
• Did the employee continue after being warned or challenged?
• Did it happen privately or in front of other employees, customers or clients?
• Was the employee undermining the manager's authority in the workplace?
• Did the employee later acknowledge that the conduct was inappropriate?
• How serious was the overall incident?
• What is the employee's disciplinary record?
• Has the employment relationship genuinely become intolerable?

The words themselves are only 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲.

𝗢𝗡𝗘 𝗦𝗪𝗘𝗔𝗥 𝗪𝗢𝗥𝗗 𝗗𝗢𝗘𝗦 𝗡𝗢𝗧 𝗘𝗤𝗨𝗔𝗟 𝗔𝗨𝗧𝗢𝗠𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗖 𝗗𝗜𝗦𝗠𝗜𝗦𝗦𝗔𝗟

This judgment should therefore not be interpreted as:

𝗘𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗲𝗲 𝘁𝗲𝗹𝗹𝘀 𝗯𝗼𝘀𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝗰𝗿𝗲𝘄 𝗼𝗳𝗳 = 𝗮𝘂𝘁𝗼𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺.

That would be far too simplistic.

What the case demonstrates is that behaviour which may initially appear to be mere disrespect can, depending on its seriousness and the surrounding circumstances, cross the line into 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘀𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘂𝗯𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻.

And when an employee deliberately and publicly challenges the employer's authority in a sufficiently serious manner, dismissal may indeed be justified.

𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗕𝗢𝗧𝗧𝗢𝗠 𝗟𝗜𝗡𝗘

Employees are entitled to disagree with management.

They are entitled to raise grievances.

They are entitled to challenge decisions through the appropriate processes.

They are even entitled, at times, to be unhappy, frustrated or angry.

What they are 𝗻𝗼𝘁 entitled to do is deliberately disregard workplace authority with impunity.

There is a line between:

“𝗜 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗮𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘆𝗼𝘂.”

and

“𝗬𝗼𝘂 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗻𝗼 𝗮𝘂𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝗺𝗲.”

Sometimes that line is crossed with a refusal.

Sometimes it is crossed through conduct.

And occasionally, as this case demonstrates, it may be crossed with two very simple words:

“𝗦𝗖𝗥𝗘𝗪 𝗬𝗢𝗨.”

𝗝𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗰𝗸𝗲𝗿 𝘃 𝗦𝗔 𝗠𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗘𝗱𝘂𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗙𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗡𝗣𝗖 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗢𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝘀 (C611/2022) [2025] ZALCCT 104, Labour Court, 17 October 2025.

𝗘𝗻𝗴𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗛𝘂𝗺𝗮𝗻 𝗖𝗮𝗽𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝗦𝗼𝗹𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀
Practical HR. Practical Labour Law. Practical Solutions.

06/10/2026

𝗟𝗘𝗧 𝗨𝗦 𝗛𝗔𝗡𝗗𝗟𝗘 𝗬𝗢𝗨𝗥 𝗪𝗢𝗥𝗞𝗣𝗟𝗔𝗖𝗘 𝗜𝗡𝗩𝗘𝗦𝗧𝗜𝗚𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡𝗦

Suspect theft, fraud or dishonesty? Dealing with allegations of harassment, bullying, policy breaches or other workplace misconduct?

Before you proceed to a disciplinary hearing, you need to establish what happened, gather the relevant evidence and prepare a properly supported case.

𝗧𝗵𝗮𝘁’𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗘𝗻𝗴𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝗻.

We handle the investigation and case preparation for you, helping you move from allegations and unanswered questions to an organised case that is ready to present.

𝗪𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗗𝗢𝗘𝗦 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗖𝗘𝗦𝗦 𝗜𝗡𝗩𝗢𝗟𝗩𝗘?

• Establishing the allegations and identifying what needs to be investigated.
• Interviewing the relevant employees and witnesses.
• Gathering and assessing documents, correspondence, records and other available evidence.
• Examining conflicting accounts, identifying gaps and following up on unanswered questions.
• Assessing whether the evidence supports disciplinary action and preparing appropriate charges where warranted.
• Organising the evidence and preparing the employer’s case for the hearing.

𝗪𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗗𝗢 𝗬𝗢𝗨 𝗛𝗔𝗩𝗘 𝗔𝗧 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗘𝗡𝗗?

Where the investigation supports proceeding to a disciplinary hearing, we prepare a complete hearing pack for the case, including:

✓ Indexed and paginated evidence bundles, with copies ready for the hearing participants.
✓ Clearly formulated disciplinary charges.
✓ An opening statement setting out the employer’s case.
✓ A witness list and a structured plan for presenting the evidence.
✓ Witnesses prepared to explain what they know and understand what to expect at the hearing.

Witness preparation helps witnesses give clear, truthful evidence in their own words.

𝗬𝗢𝗨 𝗖𝗔𝗡 𝗣𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗘𝗡𝗧 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗖𝗔𝗦𝗘 — 𝗢𝗥 𝗪𝗘 𝗖𝗔𝗡 𝗗𝗢 𝗜𝗧 𝗙𝗢𝗥 𝗬𝗢𝗨.

If you prefer to handle the hearing internally, you have the bundles, prepared witnesses, opening statement and case structure ready to work from.

If you would rather have experienced support throughout, Engage can also represent your company at the disciplinary hearing and present the employer’s case on your behalf.

𝗘𝗫𝗣𝗘𝗥𝗜𝗘𝗡𝗖𝗘 𝗧𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗖𝗢𝗨𝗡𝗧𝗦

Engage has been in business for 𝟭𝟬 𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀, with combined experience of 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝟮𝟱 𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗛𝗥 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗹𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀. We have chaired thousands of disciplinary hearings and represented companies in thousands of CCMA cases.

We understand how an investigation translates into evidence that must be presented, explained and tested at a hearing.

𝗟𝗲𝘁 𝗘𝗻𝗴𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗼 𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴.

Contact us to discuss your workplace investigation and hearing preparation needs.

06/10/2026

🎙️ 𝗬𝗢𝗨 𝗖𝗔𝗡’𝗧 𝗠𝗔𝗞𝗘 𝗧𝗛𝗜𝗦 𝗦𝗧𝗨𝗙𝗙 𝗨𝗣! 😂

Ever witnessed something at work that made you think, “Nobody would believe this”?

Today on 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗪𝗼𝗿𝗸𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗡𝗼𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗲, we’re sharing real workplace stories where common sense went missing and the explanations were almost more unbelievable than the behaviour!

Expect raised eyebrows, a few laughs and some practical HR lessons along the way. 👀

📲 𝗪𝗘 𝗪𝗔𝗡𝗧 𝗬𝗢𝗨𝗥 𝗦𝗧𝗢𝗥𝗜𝗘𝗦!
Send us your bizarre, unbelievable, hilarious or downright weird workplace experiences for us to share 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘄! Leave out names and identifying details — let the story do the talking. 🤭

💬 𝗦𝘁𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗼 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁𝘀𝗔𝗽𝗽: 𝟬𝟴𝟮 𝟯𝟰𝟯 𝟴𝟬𝟮𝟬

🕛 𝗧𝗢𝗗𝗔𝗬 | 𝟭𝟮:𝟬𝟬–𝟭𝟯:𝟬𝟬
📻 𝗘𝗱𝗲𝗻 𝗥𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗼 𝟭𝟬𝟰.𝟴 𝗙𝗠 | On Eden Brunch
🌐 edenradio.co.za

🥪 Grab your lunch — this is one workplace conversation you’ll want to hear!

🎧 Can’t tune in? Catch up on our podcast episodes on 𝗦𝗽𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗳𝘆 by searching for 𝗘𝗱𝗲𝗻 𝗥𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗼.

01/10/2026

📣 𝗘𝗫𝗖𝗜𝗧𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗡𝗘𝗪𝗦! 🎙️

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗪𝗼𝗿𝗸𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗡𝗼𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗲 is moving to your lunch break!

📅 𝗧𝘂𝗲𝘀𝗱𝗮𝘆𝘀 | 𝟭𝟮 𝗽.𝗺.–𝟭 𝗽.𝗺.
📻 𝗘𝗱𝗲𝗻 𝗥𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗼 𝟭𝟬𝟰.𝟴 𝗙𝗠

Same HR professional. Same informative content. A fresh new time slot! Join me for real workplace stories, practical HR advice and labour law conversations that matter.

🥪 Grab your lunch and tune in!

🎧 𝗖𝗮𝗻’𝘁 𝘁𝘂𝗻𝗲 𝗶𝗻? 𝗗𝗼𝗻’𝘁 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗿𝘆!
Catch up on our podcast episodes on 𝗦𝗽𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗳𝘆 — simply search for 𝗘𝗱𝗲𝗻 𝗥𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗼 and look for 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗪𝗼𝗿𝗸𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗡𝗼𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗲.

30/09/2026

🎙️ 𝗗𝗜𝗗 𝗬𝗢𝗨 𝗠𝗜𝗦𝗦 𝗧𝗛𝗜𝗦 𝗦𝗛𝗢𝗪?

𝗔 𝗠𝗔𝗦𝗧𝗘𝗥𝗖𝗟𝗔𝗦𝗦 𝗜𝗡 𝗪𝗢𝗥𝗞𝗣𝗟𝗔𝗖𝗘 𝗘𝗫𝗖𝗨𝗦𝗘𝗦

“I didn’t have transport money.”
“I was too sick to see a doctor.”
“I didn’t punch him — I only pushed him.”
“I broke it, but I didn’t mean to.”
“Everyone else does it!”
“But ChatGPT says you can’t do that…” 😂

Every employee may have a reason — but when does that reason become a 𝘃𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗱 𝗲𝘅𝗰𝘂𝘀𝗲?

In this episode of 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗪𝗼𝗿𝗸𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗡𝗼𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗲, we separate genuine justification from creative storytelling and explain the important difference between a 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗼𝗻, a 𝘃𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗱 𝗲𝘅𝗰𝘂𝘀𝗲 and 𝗺𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗴𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻.

Sometimes it’s a valid excuse.
Sometimes it’s a good reason.
And sometimes… it’s just a 𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 good story. 😏

🎧 You can listen to the full show now on Spotify:

🔗 https://open.spotify.com/episode/08EJMDfqUXdnhwr8u46t27?si=eeQ4cmK3QtqkpCZwzEKXXw&utm_source=copy-link

Eden Radio 104.8 - Audio on Demand · Episode

29/09/2026

𝗪𝗛𝗘𝗡 𝗪𝗢𝗥𝗞𝗣𝗟𝗔𝗖𝗘 𝗗𝗥𝗔𝗠𝗔 𝗕𝗘𝗖𝗢𝗠𝗘𝗦 𝗠𝗜𝗦𝗖𝗢𝗡𝗗𝗨𝗖𝗧

𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘦

Love triangles. Private loans between colleagues. Friendship fallouts. Rumours spreading through the office. Employees taking sides in someone else’s relationship. Colleagues who have stopped speaking to one another. WhatsApp arguments that follow employees into work.

Workplaces are filled with human beings—and human beings sometimes bring drama with them.

But when employees’ personal disputes begin consuming working time, dividing teams, disrupting operations or preventing people from doing their jobs, employers are often unsure how to respond.

There may be no direct insubordination. Nobody has necessarily refused an instruction. There may have been no assault, threat or obvious act of harassment. Yet the workplace has become tense, unproductive and increasingly difficult to manage.

This is where the disciplinary offence commonly described as 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗱𝘂𝗰𝘁 𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗴𝗼𝗼𝗱 𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗲 may become relevant.

𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗘𝗠𝗣𝗟𝗢𝗬𝗘𝗥 𝗜𝗦 𝗡𝗢𝗧 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗥𝗘𝗟𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡𝗦𝗛𝗜𝗣 𝗖𝗢𝗨𝗡𝗦𝗘𝗟𝗟𝗢𝗥

Employers must begin by recognising an important boundary: not every disagreement between employees is an employment matter.

If two employees were romantically involved and the relationship ended badly, the employer is not required to decide who was right or wrong.

If one employee privately lent money to another and the debt was not repaid, the employer is not a debt collector or small-claims court.

If employees become involved in a family disagreement, friendship fallout or love triangle, the employer does not acquire jurisdiction over the dispute merely because the people involved happen to work for the same company.

The employer’s concern begins when the employees bring the dispute into the workplace and their conduct starts affecting the business.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗽𝘂𝘁𝗲 𝗶𝘁𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗳 𝗺𝗮𝘆 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗯𝗲 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗱𝘂𝗰𝘁. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗲 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗿𝘂𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝗶𝘁 𝗺𝗮𝘆 𝗯𝗲.

𝗔 𝗥𝗘𝗖𝗘𝗡𝗧 𝗟𝗔𝗕𝗢𝗨𝗥 𝗖𝗢𝗨𝗥𝗧 𝗪𝗔𝗥𝗡𝗜𝗡𝗚

This distinction was illustrated in 𝗟𝗲𝗴𝗲𝗻𝗱 𝗟𝗼𝗴𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗰𝘀 𝘃 𝗦𝗔𝗧𝗔𝗪𝗨 𝗼𝗯𝗼 𝗧.𝗠. 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗢𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝘀 [𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟱] 𝗭𝗔𝗟𝗖𝗝𝗛𝗕 𝟴𝟱.

An employee believed that a colleague with whom she had been romantically involved was the father of her child. When he disputed paternity, she approached the Maintenance Court and a DNA test was eventually ordered. The test established that he was not the father.

The employer dismissed the employee for allegedly providing false or misleading information.

However, the Labour Court upheld the finding that the dismissal was substantively unfair. The paternity dispute was a private matter, the employee genuinely believed that the colleague was the father, and her conduct was not sufficiently connected to her employment to constitute workplace misconduct.

The Court reaffirmed the general principle that an employer ordinarily has no jurisdiction to discipline an employee for private conduct that is unrelated to work and occurs away from the workplace.

The fact that two people are colleagues does not automatically convert every dispute between them into workplace misconduct.

𝗪𝗛𝗘𝗡 𝗗𝗢𝗘𝗦 𝗣𝗥𝗜𝗩𝗔𝗧𝗘 𝗗𝗥𝗔𝗠𝗔 𝗕𝗘𝗖𝗢𝗠𝗘 𝗪𝗢𝗥𝗞𝗣𝗟𝗔𝗖𝗘 𝗠𝗜𝗦𝗖𝗢𝗡𝗗𝗨𝗖𝗧?

There must be a proper link—or nexus—between the employees’ conduct and the workplace.

That link may arise where the dispute:

▪️ Repeatedly interrupts employees while they are supposed to be working.

▪️ Causes loud arguments, confrontations or scenes in the workplace.

▪️ Draws other employees into the dispute and divides the workforce into opposing camps.

▪️ Results in persistent gossip, rumour-spreading or character attacks.

▪️ Causes employees to refuse to communicate or cooperate on operational matters.

▪️ Prevents one or more employees from performing their duties properly.

▪️ Causes employees to abandon their workstations to discuss or participate in the drama.

▪️ Creates hostility that affects teamwork, productivity or customer service.

▪️ Results in abusive messages being circulated through workplace communication channels.

▪️ Causes customers, suppliers or other employees to witness inappropriate confrontations.

▪️ Continues after management has instructed the employees to keep their private dispute out of the workplace.

▪️ Creates actual or reasonably foreseeable harm to the employer’s operations, workforce or legitimate business interests.

The employer must therefore distinguish between an unpleasant atmosphere and a genuine disciplinary issue.

Employees are not required to like one another. They are not required to be friends, attend one another’s social events or agree about personal matters.

They are, however, required to behave professionally, perform their duties and cooperate sufficiently for the employer’s operations to function.

𝗪𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗗𝗢𝗘𝗦 “𝗠𝗔𝗜𝗡𝗧𝗘𝗡𝗔𝗡𝗖𝗘 𝗢𝗙 𝗚𝗢𝗢𝗗 𝗢𝗥𝗗𝗘𝗥” 𝗠𝗘𝗔𝗡?

“Good order” does not mean that employees must remain silent, never disagree or pretend that conflict does not exist.

It refers to the level of stability, professionalism, cooperation and discipline reasonably required for the workplace to function effectively.

Conduct detrimental to the maintenance of good order is therefore conduct that materially disturbs or undermines that functioning.

It is a broad disciplinary charge and should not be used carelessly. It is not a convenient label to attach to behaviour that management merely dislikes.

The employer must identify the specific conduct complained of and explain how it affected the workplace.

A charge should not simply state:

“𝗬𝗼𝘂 𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗱𝗿𝗮𝗺𝗮 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗲.”

It should identify what the employee allegedly did, when it occurred and what workplace impact followed.

For example:

“𝗖𝗼𝗻𝗱𝘂𝗰𝘁 𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗴𝗼𝗼𝗱 𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗲, in that on [date], during working hours, you became involved in a prolonged argument with a fellow employee concerning a private dispute. The confrontation disrupted employees in the department, interrupted workplace operations and prevented you and/or other employees from performing their duties.”

Where the complaint involves repeated conduct, the charge should identify the relevant incidents or period and describe the pattern relied upon.

𝗚𝗢𝗦𝗦𝗜𝗣 𝗜𝗦 𝗡𝗢𝗧 𝗔𝗨𝗧𝗢𝗠𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗖𝗔𝗟𝗟𝗬 𝗠𝗜𝗦𝗖𝗢𝗡𝗗𝗨𝗖𝗧

Employers should be particularly careful when dealing with gossip.

A single private conversation, an unpopular opinion or an employee expressing frustration will not automatically justify disciplinary action.

The employer must establish something more substantial, such as:

▪️ Persistent or malicious rumour-spreading.

▪️ Knowingly circulating false allegations.

▪️ Disclosure of confidential information.

▪️ Attempts to turn employees against a colleague.

▪️ Repeated interference with working time.

▪️ Damage to working relationships.

▪️ Harassment, humiliation or victimisation.

▪️ A measurable effect on productivity, morale or workplace cooperation.

The disciplinary case must be based on evidence—not simply on a statement that “everyone is talking” or that management is tired of the drama.

𝗟𝗢𝗩𝗘 𝗧𝗥𝗜𝗔𝗡𝗚𝗟𝗘𝗦 𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗪𝗢𝗥𝗞𝗣𝗟𝗔𝗖𝗘 𝗥𝗘𝗟𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡𝗦𝗛𝗜𝗣𝗦

Consensual workplace relationships are generally private matters. Employers should not attempt to regulate employees’ morality or investigate intimate relationships merely because colleagues are involved.

However, the consequences of those relationships may become employment matters where they result in:

▪️ Arguments or confrontations during working hours.

▪️ Favouritism or abuse of managerial authority.

▪️ Retaliation following the end of a relationship.

▪️ Persistent unwanted communication.

▪️ Harassment or intimidation.

▪️ Misuse of confidential information.

▪️ Employees refusing to work together.

▪️ Public scenes in front of customers or colleagues.

▪️ Ongoing disruption to the workplace.

Again, the employer should discipline the workplace conduct—not adjudicate the romantic dispute.

𝗜𝗡𝗩𝗘𝗦𝗧𝗜𝗚𝗔𝗧𝗘 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗜𝗠𝗣𝗔𝗖𝗧, 𝗡𝗢𝗧 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗦𝗖𝗔𝗡𝗗𝗔𝗟

Before taking disciplinary action, the employer should investigate objectively.

The investigation should determine:

𝟭. What exactly happened?

𝟮. When and where did it happen?

𝟯. Was it during working time or through workplace communication channels?

𝟰. Which employees witnessed or were affected by it?

𝟱. How much working time was lost?

𝟲. Were employees prevented from completing their duties?

𝟳. Did anyone refuse to cooperate on work-related matters?

𝟴. Were customers, suppliers or members of the public exposed to the conduct?

𝟵. Had management previously instructed the employees to stop the disruptive behaviour?

𝟭𝟬. Is there evidence of actual or potential operational harm?

The employer should avoid becoming distracted by every detail of the private disagreement. It does not need to decide who ended the relationship, who owes whom money or who started the WhatsApp argument at home.

The disciplinary enquiry must remain focused on what happened at work and how it affected the employer’s legitimate interests.

𝗠𝗨𝗦𝗧 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗘𝗠𝗣𝗟𝗢𝗬𝗘𝗥 𝗗𝗜𝗦𝗖𝗜𝗣𝗟𝗜𝗡𝗘 𝗜𝗠𝗠𝗘𝗗𝗜𝗔𝗧𝗘𝗟𝗬?

Not every incident requires a disciplinary hearing.

Where the disruption is minor or occurs for the first time, the employer may begin with:

▪️ Counselling.

▪️ A clear instruction to keep the private dispute out of the workplace.

▪️ Mediation, where appropriate and voluntary.

▪️ Separate grievance processes where either employee alleges unfair treatment.

▪️ Clarification of expected standards of professional behaviour.

▪️ An informal or formal warning.

If an employee then refuses a lawful and reasonable instruction to stop the disruptive conduct or return to work, that refusal may give rise to a separate allegation of insubordination.

Employers should, however, avoid stacking multiple charges for the same conduct merely to make the matter appear more serious.

Use the charge that most accurately describes the misconduct proved.

Where the evidence establishes a more specific offence—such as harassment, intimidation, discrimination, assault, abusive language or disclosure of confidential information—the employer should generally charge that offence directly rather than relying only on a broad “good order” charge.

𝗪𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗦𝗔𝗡𝗖𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝗠𝗔𝗬 𝗕𝗘 𝗜𝗠𝗣𝗢𝗦𝗘𝗗?

The appropriate sanction depends on the seriousness and consequences of the conduct.

A written warning may be appropriate for a relatively minor first incident where the employee accepts responsibility and the disruption was limited.

A final written warning may be justified where:

▪️ The conduct was serious.

▪️ Several employees or business operations were affected.

▪️ The employee behaved maliciously or deliberately.

▪️ Management had already attempted to intervene.

▪️ The employee showed no insight into the impact of the conduct.

▪️ The employee continued the behaviour after being clearly instructed to stop.

Dismissal may become appropriate where the misconduct is sufficiently serious to make continued employment intolerable, or where the employee repeats the conduct despite prior corrective discipline.

For example, dismissal may potentially be justified where an employee persists with a deliberate campaign of disruption, harassment or division; repeatedly refuses to cooperate with a colleague for personal reasons; or continues creating serious workplace conflict while already subject to a valid final written warning for similar conduct.

However, employers must not jump from “office drama” directly to dismissal.

The seriousness of the misconduct, actual or potential harm, the employee’s disciplinary record, consistency, remorse, length of service and the possibility of corrective discipline must all be considered.

𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗥𝗨𝗟𝗘 𝗘𝗠𝗣𝗟𝗢𝗬𝗘𝗥𝗦 𝗦𝗛𝗢𝗨𝗟𝗗 𝗥𝗘𝗠𝗘𝗠𝗕𝗘𝗥

Employees are entitled to private lives. They are also entitled to disagree with one another.

But they are not entitled to allow their private disputes to consume working time, destabilise the workforce or prevent themselves and others from doing the work they are employed to perform.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗽𝘂𝘁𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗲𝗿’𝘀 𝗯𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗿𝘂𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝘁 𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗲 𝗶𝘀.

Employers should discipline the workplace conduct—not attempt to judge, resolve or punish the private dispute underneath it.

© Engage Human Capital Solutions (Pty) Ltd