Workers fired for defying bosses, court upholds dismissal

Johannesburg – The Labour Appeal Court has upheld the dismissal of five former Feltex Automotive employees who were fired in 2018 after refusing to return to their workstations while insisting they would wait to meet a union organiser for a meeting that company management said had neither been arranged nor authorised.

As reported by IOL, a full bench of the court confirmed that an earlier Labour Court ruling, as well as an arbitration award finding the dismissals fair and justified, would stand.

The case involves Thulani Dladla, Thabang Mogaswa, Phenyo Hlongwane, Tshililo Magadani and Tshepiso Mabusela, who were employed on the Grammar Line producing headrests for BMW vehicles.

Following the cancellation of a BMW order in early 2018, Feltex entered into consultations with the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA) over possible retrenchments. According to the African News Agency, although the company ultimately decided against retrenching and instead undertook to redeploy workers to other departments, confusion remained over how this decision was communicated to employees.

Written ultimatums

On 12 March 2018, the five employees gathered in the company canteen, stating that they were “waiting to meet a union organiser to discuss possible retrenchments,” according to management records. Court papers published on SAFLII show that Feltex management responded by informing the workers that no such meeting had been scheduled or authorised, and instructed them to either return to their workstations or leave the premises.

Management subsequently issued two written ultimatums warning that failure to comply would be treated as participation in an illegal strike.

The employees remained in the canteen and were later charged with participating in an unauthorised meeting — categorised as “riotous behaviour” under company policy — as well as failing to obey a lawful instruction and committing acts of insubordination. Following a disciplinary hearing, they were dismissed.

The dispute proceeded through several legal stages. A commissioner at the Motor Industries Bargaining Council found the dismissals to be substantively fair, and the Labour Court later dismissed the employees’ application to review and set aside the arbitration award.

Excessively harsh sanction

According to the court record, the employees’ grounds of appeal — including claims that they were not rostered to work at the time, that the meeting had been planned with union involvement, and that dismissal was an excessively harsh sanction — were rejected.

In its judgment, the appeal court held that the workers had “failed to prove that the meeting was authorised or that they were entitled to ignore management’s instructions.”

The court found that gathering in the canteen during working hours without authorisation constituted misconduct, and that the instruction to return to work was “lawful and reasonable.”

The judges described the employees’ conduct as “persistent, deliberate and defiant” insubordination despite repeated warnings.

The Labour Appeal Court concluded that dismissal was a proportionate sanction given the seriousness of the misconduct and the damage caused to the trust relationship between employer and employees at a sensitive time for the company. The appeal was dismissed, with no order as to costs.