The recent ruling by the Labour Court of South Africa in Cape Town has reinstated an employee dismissed from his position at Sibanye Gold Limited, trading as Sibanye Stillwater, in a crucial judgment in the context of the South African labour law.
At the crux of the case is the dismissal of Titus Tlotliso Maoeng, a shop steward employed as a rock drill operator who was terminated for allegedly intimidating a colleague during a violent strike initiated by his union, the Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union (AMCU). This particular strike, which began in December 2018, was marked by severe unrest and violence, leading to significant injuries and fatalities among workers and non-strikers alike.
The court heard that Maoeng had made a phone call to an HR superintendent identified in the judgment only as Ms Moleli, during which he questioned her whereabouts, and enquired about employees who were reportedly being coerced to join rival unions. Though he characterised this conversation as an innocent inquiry, the court concluded that Maoeng's actions created an environment of fear, particularly given the violent context of the ongoing strike.
Judge R Lagrange delivered a nuanced ruling on 10 April 2025, stating that while Maoeng's conduct was inappropriate and did leave Ms Moleli feeling threatened, it did not meet the threshold for intimidation as defined under the law. Maoeng's actions fell short of genuine threats intended to compel or force the HR staff member into action. The findings also highlighted a critical distinction between pressure and outright intimidation, asserting that the latter requires a demonstrable intent to instil fear of imminent harm.
The judge noted, "While the applicant's conduct of putting undue pressure on Ms Moleli amounted to inappropriate behaviour… I could not find that it could be elevated to the level of intimidation or threatening conduct." This verdict comes in response to the miner's dismissal being deemed substantively unfair, resulting in an order for reinstatement and limited backpay.
The ruling analysed the broader implications of the accusations, particularly the volatile backdrop of the strike which included threats to personal safety and significant strife within the workplace community and South African labour law in general. The court acknowledged the distress Ms Moleli experienced and validated her feelings of anxiety but ultimately maintained that to uphold a dismissal on grounds of intimidation demanded stronger evidence of intent to intimidate than what had been demonstrated.
#Conviction
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
