The recent ruling in Goodyear South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (PR142/22) [2024] ZALCPE 41 (6 November 2024) offers important lessons for employers in how to handle cases of alleged insubordination. This is of particular importance, in circumstances where misconduct occurs against the backdrop of operational challenges and the broader workplace environment. This case revolves around the dismissal of 54 employees for refusing to keep their machines operational during breaks. This allegedly, led to operational disruptions and decreased productivity according to the employer. However, the Labour Court found that the dismissals were unfair in the circumstances, highlighting the need for employers to exercise caution and fairness in disciplining employees for misconduct.
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
The company operates three shifts during weekdays and two on Saturdays. On 20 March 2020, a collective agreement was concluded between the company and NUMSA, effective from 6 April 2020. Part of the agreement formalized the long-standing practice of continuous machine operation during staggered breaks. In addition, it abolished the “legacy allowance” previously paid to employees for relieving colleagues during breaks. In exchange, employees received a once-off gratuity of R5000. The amended agreement did not explicitly address operational requirements during breaks.
The events leading to dismissal
On 2 March 2021, a machine operator, informed his team leader that he would no longer operate two machines or ensure continuous operation during his breaks. This refusal led to machine stoppages. The issue escalated on 6 March 2021 when other employees switched off their machines during their breaks.
On 8 March 2021, the company reiterated its policy on staggered breaks via internal communications, emphasizing the requirement for continuous machine operation. Despite this, machine stoppages continued.
On 9 March 2021, the company suspended a shop steward, accusing him of instigating the refusal to adhere to staggered breaks. The company also issued final written warnings to the employees between 9 and 11 March 2021, with employees being informed that future non-compliance would result in dismissal.
Notwithstanding the final written warnings issued, on 11 March 2021, the employees were suspended and called to attend disciplinary hearings scheduled for 16 March 2021. They were charged with gross insubordination for failing to comply with the staggered breaks policy on 10 March 2021.
Subsequent strike and dismissals
Following their suspension, other employees embarked on an unprotected strike, protesting the suspension. The strike lasted a week before the company secured a court interdict. All striking employees were not disciplined.
After disciplinary hearings, all 54 employees were dismissed on 31 May 2021 for gross insubordination. The employees referred an unfair dismissal dispute to the CCMA.
CCMA AWARD
On 28 June 2022, the commissioner found that, whilst the employees’ conduct constituted insubordination, the misconduct was not gross enough to justify dismissal. The commissioner ruled the dismissals were substantively unfair and ordered the retrospective reinstatement of the employees. The company subsequently applied for a review of the award.
FINDINGS OF THE LABOUR COURT:
- The company issued final written warnings, with the proviso that employees follow instruction. Instead of giving the employees an opportunity to change their behaviour, employees were suspended and ultimately dismissed.
- The striking workers whose unprotected strike lasted a week, and caused much damage, were not disciplined or dismissed. Notwithstanding that the damage caused to the company was severe in comparison to the other employees. The sanction of dismissal was too harsh.
- Ultimately, the court upheld the commissioner’s finding that while the employees’ conduct constituted insubordination, it was not gross enough to warrant dismissal. Thus, it confirmed that their dismissals were substantively unfair and ordered their reinstatement.
KEY LESSONS FOR EMPLOYERS
Fairness in disciplinary action
One of the central takeaways from this case is the importance of fairness and consistency in disciplinary action. The company had failed to take action against employees involved in the unprotected strike, which caused far more harm to the company’s operations. The company’s failure to address more serious misconduct undermined its argument that the dismissed employees’ actions were grossly insubordinate.
For employers, this emphasizes the need to apply disciplinary rules consistently across all employees, regardless of the severity of the misconduct. Inconsistent application of rules—such as failing to discipline other employees who engaged in similar or more severe misconduct—can weaken the employer’s case and may lead to claims of unfair treatment.
Clarity in Agreements
Ensure that collective agreements are clear and comprehensive. The ambiguity in the collective agreement regarding meal and tea breaks contributed to misunderstandings that escalated into conflict. Employers should explicitly outline expectations and obligations to avoid disputes.
Proportional Disciplinary Actions
Disciplinary measures should be proportionate to the misconduct. The court found that while the employees’ actions constituted insubordination, it was not severe enough to justify dismissal. Employers must carefully assess the severity of employee actions before deciding on disciplinary measures.
Training for Management
Provide training for management on labour relations, conflict resolution, and appropriate disciplinary procedures to ensure they are equipped to handle disputes effectively and within legal frameworks.
CONCLUSION
The Goodyear South Africa case highlights several crucial lessons for employers when handling disciplinary actions, particularly in cases of alleged insubordination. The Labour Court’s ruling underscores the importance of fairness, consistency, and proportionality in the disciplinary process. Employers must ensure that disciplinary measures are applied equitably across all employees and that any collective agreements are clear and unambiguous to prevent misunderstandings.
Additionally, the case emphasizes the need for management to carefully assess the severity of misconduct and to take appropriate action based on the specific circumstances. By applying these principles, employers can mitigate the risk of unfair dismissal claims and foster a more productive and compliant workplace. Ultimately, the Goodyear case serves as a reminder that even when operational challenges arise, fairness and consistency in addressing employee behaviour remain paramount to maintaining trust and legal compliance.
______________________________________________________________________________________
SEIFSA IR Division Workshop
SEIFSA IR Division offers a workshop on Chairing and Initiating Disciplinary Hearings. SEIFSA offers all the training workshops as either on-site training or via webinars. For on-site training, we can hold the sessions at your company premises. For more details on the workshop, please click the following link: Chairing and Initiating Disciplinary Hearings Workshop.
