Labour Appeal Court upholds dismissal of five employees who refused to work until they met their union
The Labour Appeal Court has dismissed five former Feltex Automotive employees who were fired after refusing to return to work.
Image: Pexels
The Labour Appeal Court has dismissed an appeal by five former Feltex Automotive employees who were fired after refusing to return to work during an unauthorised workplace gathering in 2018, ruling that their dismissal was fair and justified.
In a judgment handed down by a full bench, the court confirmed an earlier decision of the Labour Court, which had upheld an arbitration award finding that the employees’ dismissal for misconduct was substantively fair.
The appellants — Thulani Dladla, Thabang Mogaswa, Phenyo Hlongwane, Tshililo Magadani and Tshepiso Mabusela — were employed in Feltex Automotive’s Grammar Line department, which produced headrests for BMW vehicles. After BMW cancelled its order in early 2018, Feltex began consultations with the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA) over possible retrenchments.
However, the company ultimately decided against retrenchments and agreed to redeploy all affected employees to other departments on the same terms and conditions. NUMSA was informed of the decision and undertook to communicate it to its members.
Despite this outcome, the five employees gathered in the company canteen on 12 March 2018, stating they were waiting to meet a union organiser to discuss possible retrenchments. Management denied that any meeting had been scheduled or authorised and instructed the employees to return to work or leave the premises.
Two written ultimatums were issued warning that failure to comply would be treated as participation in an illegal strike. The employees refused to return to their workstations, insisting they would wait for the union organiser.
They were later charged with participating in an unauthorised meeting — classified under company rules as “riotous behaviour” — and with failure to obey a lawful instruction and insubordination. Following a disciplinary hearing, they were dismissed.
The dispute was referred to the Motor Industries Bargaining Council, where a commissioner found that the dismissals were substantively fair. The Labour Court later dismissed the employees’ application to review and set aside the arbitration award.
In their appeal, the employees argued that they had not been rostered for work at the time, that the meeting was planned with union involvement, and that dismissal was too harsh a sanction.
However, the court rejected these arguments, finding that the employees had failed to prove that the meeting was authorised or that they were entitled to ignore management’s instructions.
The court held that gathering in the canteen during working hours constituted an unauthorised meeting under Feltex’s disciplinary rules, and that the instruction to return to work or leave the premises was lawful and reasonable.
“The employees’ conduct went beyond mere refusal,” the judgment noted, describing it as persistent, deliberate and defiant insubordination that lasted several hours despite repeated warnings.
The court further ruled that dismissal was an appropriate sanction, given the seriousness of the misconduct and the damage caused to the trust relationship between employer and employees, particularly during a sensitive period of redeployment aimed at avoiding retrenchments.
The appeal was dismissed, with no order as to costs.
sinenhlanhla.masilela@iol.co.za
IOL News