- The employee posed next to a company-branded promotional display, imitating the model’s stance.
- The employer said she posted more similar images even after being told not to.
- The Labour Court considered whether the employee had received a clear and direct instruction.
A computer clerk at Academy Brushware was dismissed after she posted social media photos of herself copying a pose from the company’s branded promotional display. The company argued that these posts were unprofessional and constituted gross insubordination because they were shared despite management’s instruction to the contrary.
The Labour Court in Cape Town heard the dispute in Academy Brushware (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Another. Acting Judge AC Oosthuizen delivered the judgment on 12 August 2026.
Photos mirrored company advertising
Joleen Geswent had worked for Academy Brushware since 2002 and had been the computer clerk since 2013.
The company used pop-up images for its marketing. One display featured a blonde woman in shorts and high heels, posing in front of a backdrop with the Academy Brushware logo and products.
Geswent posted photos of herself next to the display, also wearing shorts and high heels and striking a similar pose as the model.
The company said the first photo was posted on 17 March 2017. According to Academy Brushware, manager Mr Kingham told Geswent not to post such photos on social media, but she later uploaded more similar images in direct defiance of that instruction.
Geswent disagreed with this version. She admitted there was a discussion, but insisted she was never given a clear instruction not to post the photos.
Dismissal followed charge of gross insubordination
Academy Brushware charged Geswent with gross insubordination, arguing that the photos she posted on social media did not fit the company’s reputation or standards of professionalism, and that she did so despite her manager’s instructions.
She was found guilty at a disciplinary enquiry and dismissed. Geswent took her unfair dismissal dispute to the CCMA, where the commissioner found that the employer had not proved she was insubordinate, and that the dismissal was not justified.
Court focused on clarity of instruction
Judge Oosthuizen said the employer had to prove that a specific and clear instruction was given. The court found there was not enough evidence to prefer Kingham’s version of the 17 March 2017 discussion over Geswent’s.
The judgment said it could not be concluded that a clear instruction came from that conversation or from any existing workplace rule about social media conduct.
Similarity to company branding became significant
One notable feature of the judgment was the court’s comparison between Geswent’s photos and Academy Brushware’s own promotional material.
Judge Oosthuizen noted that Geswent’s photos were not very different in character from the marketing images the company itself had created and used. The court saw this similarity as an important context when weighing the seriousness of the alleged misconduct.
No social-media policy and no evidence of harm
The judgment also noted that there was no workplace code or social media policy in place to regulate what employees posted online.
In addition, Academy Brushware gave no evidence that the photos caused any real harm to the business, damaged its reputation, or led to complaints from customers.
Judge Oosthuizen said all these factors needed to be considered together when deciding about the alleged insubordination.
Removal of posts counted against finding of persistent defiance
The court noted that when Kingham specifically told Geswent to remove the posts on 20 March 2017, she did so. The judgment said this behaviour weighed against the idea that she had wilfully or persistently defied management.
Judge Oosthuizen ultimately found that the commissioner’s decision was reasonable given the evidence, and the review application was dismissed.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
