01/09/2026
๐ฌ๐ข๐จ๐ฅ ๐ง๐๐ง๐๐ ๐๐ฆ ๐ก๐ข๐ง ๐ ๐ฆ๐๐๐๐๐
๐ช๐ต๐ ๐๐ฒ๐ป๐ถ๐ผ๐ฟ๐ถ๐๐ ๐บ๐ฎ๐ ๐ฐ๐ผ๐๐ป๐ ๐ฎ๐ด๐ฎ๐ถ๐ป๐๐ ๐ฎ ๐บ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฎ๐ด๐ฒ๐ฟ ๐ณ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐ฑ๐ถ๐๐ฐ๐ถ๐ฝ๐น๐ถ๐ป๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป
Some managers believe that their seniority, experience or value to the business will protect them when they cross the line.
The Labour Court has delivered a very different message:
๐ง๐ต๐ฒ ๐บ๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฒ ๐ฎ๐๐๐ต๐ผ๐ฟ๐ถ๐๐ ๐๐ผ๐ ๐ต๐ผ๐น๐ฑ, ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐บ๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฒ ๐บ๐ฎ๐ ๐ฏ๐ฒ ๐ฒ๐
๐ฝ๐ฒ๐ฐ๐๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐๐ผ๐.
In ๐๐ฒ๐ฏ๐ถ ๐ ๐๐๐ ๐ ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ ๐ข๐๐ต๐ฒ๐ฟ๐, an Operations Manager became involved in a heated workplace argument with a subordinate over overtime.
Both parties used strong language. During the confrontation, the manager swore at the employee. When she attempted to walk away, he approached her, placed his hand or hands on her shoulders and physically turned her around.
Other employees witnessed the incident.
The manager was charged with using abusive and offensive language and with assault. He was dismissed and challenged the substantive fairness of his dismissal at the CCMA.
The commissioner found the dismissal fair.
The manager then approached the Labour Court, arguing, among other things, that he had been provoked and that dismissal was too harsh.
๐ง๐๐ ๐๐ข๐จ๐ฅ๐ง ๐ช๐๐ฆ ๐ก๐ข๐ง ๐ฃ๐๐ฅ๐ฆ๐จ๐๐๐๐
The Court held that physically turning the employee around constituted assault.
Whether the manager used one hand or two did not change the nature of the conduct. Similarly, whether he swore once or several times was not decisive.
The misconduct had occurred.
The Court also considered the managerโs seniority, the fact that his conduct was directed at a subordinate and that it took place in front of other employees.
As a manager, he was expected to exercise restraint, judgment and professionalism โ particularly during conflict.
His managerial status did not provide protection. It increased the significance of his conduct.
๐ฃ๐ฅ๐ข๐ฉ๐ข๐๐๐ง๐๐ข๐ก ๐๐ฆ ๐ก๐ข๐ง ๐ ๐๐ฅ๐๐ ๐ฃ๐๐ฆ๐ฆ
Provocation can be relevant when deciding whether misconduct occurred or whether dismissal was an appropriate sanction.
However, saying โI was provokedโ does not automatically excuse an aggressive response.
The question is not simply whether the other employee said or did something provocative. The response must still be considered objectively and in context.
In this case, the managerโs response was aggressive rather than defensive. His reliance on provocation therefore did not save him.
๐ ๐๐ก๐๐๐๐ฅ๐ฆ ๐๐ฅ๐ ๐ก๐ข๐ง ๐ข๐ฅ๐๐๐ก๐๐ฅ๐ฌ ๐๐ฌ๐ฆ๐ง๐๐ก๐๐๐ฅ๐ฆ
Managers exercise authority on behalf of the employer.
They give instructions, manage conflict, enforce workplace rules and are expected to model the conduct required from employees.
When a manager becomes abusive, threatening or physically aggressive, the consequences extend beyond the immediate incident.
The conduct can:
โข undermine the managerโs authority;
โข damage employeesโ trust in management;
โข create fear or hostility in the workplace;
โข weaken the employerโs ability to enforce discipline consistently; and
โข expose the employer to further workplace conflict and legal risk.
Seniority is therefore not automatically a mitigating factor.
Depending on the misconduct, it may be an aggravating factor.
๐ก๐ข ๐ญ๐๐ฅ๐ข-๐ง๐ข๐๐๐ฅ๐๐ก๐๐ ๐ฃ๐ข๐๐๐๐ฌ? ๐ง๐๐๐ง ๐ ๐๐ฌ ๐ก๐ข๐ง ๐ฆ๐๐ฉ๐ ๐ฌ๐ข๐จ ๐๐๐ง๐๐๐ฅ
The Court also rejected the suggestion that dismissal could not be fair without proof of a formal zero-tolerance policy.
Serious misconduct does not become acceptable simply because the disciplinary code does not label it โzero tolerance.โ
The seriousness of the conduct, the surrounding circumstances, the employeeโs position and the effect on the employment relationship must all be considered.
The Court further confirmed that, in appropriate cases, a breakdown of trust may be inferred from the nature and seriousness of the misconduct. Direct evidence about the destruction of trust is not required in every case.
๐ช๐๐๐ง ๐ฆ๐๐ข๐จ๐๐ ๐๐ ๐ฃ๐๐ข๐ฌ๐๐ฅ๐ฆ ๐๐ข?
Employers should not protect senior employees merely because they are experienced, valuable or difficult to replace.
At the same time, dismissal should never be automatic. Every case must still be investigated and assessed on its own facts.
Employers should consider:
โข the seriousness and circumstances of the misconduct;
โข the employeeโs position and level of responsibility;
โข whether there was genuine provocation;
โข whether the response was defensive or aggressive;
โข the employeeโs disciplinary record, remorse and insight;
โข consistency with comparable cases; and
โข the effect of the misconduct on the employment relationship.
Managers should also receive proper training on workplace conflict, discipline, emotional control and the responsibilities that accompany their authority.
๐ง๐๐ ๐๐ข๐ง๐ง๐ข๐ ๐๐๐ก๐
A management title does not create immunity from discipline.
It does not give a manager permission to swear at, intimidate, threaten or physically confront an employee.
Managers may be held to a higher standard precisely because of the authority entrusted to them.
๐ฆ๐ฒ๐ป๐ถ๐ผ๐ฟ๐ถ๐๐ ๐บ๐ฎ๐ ๐ด๐ถ๐๐ฒ ๐๐ผ๐ ๐บ๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฒ ๐ฎ๐๐๐ต๐ผ๐ฟ๐ถ๐๐ โ ๐ฏ๐๐ ๐ถ๐ ๐ฎ๐น๐๐ผ ๐ด๐ถ๐๐ฒ๐ ๐๐ผ๐ ๐บ๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฒ ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐๐ฝ๐ผ๐ป๐๐ถ๐ฏ๐ถ๐น๐ถ๐๐.
Lebi v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (C574/2023) [2026] ZALCCT 145 (28 August 2026)
ยฉ Engage Human Capital Solutions
Practical labour relations guidance for employers and managers.
