Skip to content
Close Menu
ConvictionConviction
  • Home
  • Law & Justice
  • Special Reports
  • Opinion
  • Ask The Expert
  • Get In Touch

Subscribe to Updates

Get the latest creative news from FooBar about art, design and business.

What's Hot

Public interest law gathering to tackle land justice, migration and threats to human rights

October 25, 2026

The reinstatement of Lulama Oliphant: What a government spokesperson really is

October 24, 2026

Sebokeng grandmother secures title deed after years of dispute with brother-in-law

October 24, 2026
Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
Trending
  • Public interest law gathering to tackle land justice, migration and threats to human rights
  • The reinstatement of Lulama Oliphant: What a government spokesperson really is
  • Sebokeng grandmother secures title deed after years of dispute with brother-in-law
  • The ANC could pay the electoral price for a Home Affairs directive issued under a DA minister
  • Carrim’s battle, Sibiya’s bail refusal and alleged staged kidnapping headline lower court cases
  • Gauteng department and MEC ordered to honour R68.3m housing settlement
  • Judge clears man who pleaded guilty to buying suspected stolen Huawei phone
  • SARU HR manager’s feud with boss escalated from grievance to dismissal
Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
ConvictionConviction
Sonneblom
  • Home
  • Law & Justice
  • Special Reports
  • Opinion
  • Ask The Expert
  • Get In Touch
ConvictionConviction
Home » The Cantamessa case, social media, and the modern workplace: The impact of online conduct
Employment and Labour Law Series

The Cantamessa case, social media, and the modern workplace: The impact of online conduct

Ann-Suhet Marx, Director and Head of Litigation at Van Deventer Dowlath & Marx Inc., examines how the Cantamessa case continues to shape workplace rules for online conduct.
Ann-Suhet MarxBy Ann-Suhet MarxJuly 17, 2026Updated:July 17, 2026No Comments
Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn WhatsApp Reddit Tumblr Email
Ann-Suhet Marx, Director and Head of Litigation at Van Deventer Dowlath & Marx Inc., examines the enduring workplace impact of the Cantamessa case.
Share
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Pinterest Email
  • The landmark Edcon Ltd v Cantamessa judgment remains the foundation of South African workplace social media law.
  • Recent Labour Court decisions show that online conduct can justify disciplinary action where it damages trust, safety or an employer's reputation.
  • Employers and employees alike must understand that digital behaviour can have real workplace consequences, whether on or off duty.

I’ve spent years watching the way the Edcon Ltd v Cantamessa case changed the way we think about social media at work.

This is the case that still governs the digital workplace today: if your employer can be linked to what you say online, it becomes a workplace issue - even if you’re off duty or on your own phone.

That principle has become the backbone of almost every dispute involving Facebook posts, WhatsApp groups, TikTok videos, and even messages sent on company devices.

What happened

The Edcon Ltd v Cantamessa matter involved an employee who posted racist content on her personal Facebook profile and was then dismissed. Even though she wasn’t at work, nor using company equipment, her profile identified her as an Edcon employee, and the post was public.

The Labour Court upheld her dismissal and gave us three principles that still guide digital misconduct cases today and apply across every social media platform:

  • The nexus test: If your employer can be identified, your post is no longer “private.”
  • Reputational harm: The employer doesn’t need proof of actual damage - only that harm is reasonably foreseeable.
  • Compatibility with employment: Some public behaviour simply cannot coexist with the trust required in an employment relationship.

Digital behaviour has become workplace behaviour

The modern workplace is porous and multi-layered. We move between tasks, chats, emails, and social feeds without thinking, with company devices often doubling as personal lifelines. And national events - from xenophobic tension to strike action - tend to amplify the impact of what we’re posting online.

These four cases show how the law applies today:

1. Erarite (Pty) Ltd t/a Khayelitsha Superspar v CCMA & Others

During a period of xenophobic unrest, a bakery manager posted a provocative biblical verse on his personal WhatsApp status and in a management group. The employer dismissed him, but the CCMA ruled the dismissal substantively unfair, finding a final written warning more appropriate.

The Labour Court upheld the CCMA's decision, agreeing that while the post was highly insensitive and ill-judged, it did not amount to hate speech or direct incitement. The key takeaways are that proportionality matters and that not every digital misstep deserves the ultimate workplace penalty.

2. Weir Minerals Africa (Pty) Ltd v NUMSA & Others

During a heated strike, employees called colleagues “impimpi” in a WhatsApp group - a term historically linked to retaliation and violence. Here, the Labour Court set aside an arbitration award that had reinstated the employees, upholding their dismissal. The court viewed the messages as highly threatening and destructive to workplace safety. Because trust was entirely broken, the employment relationship could not continue.

3. Ndzimande & Others v Didben NO & Others

Employees made false allegations about their employer on SABC radio stations during a march. While this didn't occur on social media per se, it was public, far-reaching, and instantly disseminated – just like digital speech. The Labour Court upheld their dismissals, noting that their conduct amounted to a severe breach of loyalty and caused reputational harm. The bottom line? Public statements that undermine the employer’s integrity can justify dismissal.

4. Makhoba v CCMA

An employee posted an egregiously racist comment on a public news outlet's Facebook page while off duty. Even though he was away from work and argued that he was unaware of the company's social media policy, the Labour Court upheld his dismissal.

The court affirmed that some public behaviours - specifically incitement to racial violence - are so fundamentally harmful that they instantly destroy the trust required to maintain a safe, multicultural workplace, regardless of when or where they are posted.

On-duty screens and company devices

While Cantamessa dealt primarily with off-duty conduct, its principles now govern disputes about:

  • scrolling social media during work hours
  • posting content on company equipment
  • sending inappropriate messages on employer-owned platforms
  • treating workplace WhatsApp groups as private spaces

Employers have the right to regulate device use, but they must do so lawfully, consistently, and with clear communication. The Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA) requires transparency, meaning that device monitoring is only legal when employees have been clearly informed.

The core question remains the same: does the conduct undermine trust, damage reputation, or make continued employment incompatible?

What employers need to do

If you’re an employer, the law expects clarity and fairness, so you need:

  • clear policies on device use and online conduct
  • established rules for workplace WhatsApp groups
  • POPIA-compliant monitoring notices
  • consistent enforcement across the board
  • proportional responses to infractions
  • a clear distinction between time-wasting and actual misconduct

Remember that a rushed or heavy-handed response to digital behaviour often ends up causing as much or even more reputational harm to the company than the original post.

What employees need to stop doing at work

If you’re an employee, understand that digital behaviour at work is highly visible (even when it feels private), so avoid:

  • excessive scrolling during work hours
  • posting publicly while identifiable as an employee
  • using company devices for harmful, offensive, or inflammatory content
  • treating workplace WhatsApp groups as personal chatrooms
  • making public allegations about your employer without evidence
  • assuming that “off-duty” means “off-limits”

The law doesn’t expect perfection, but it does expect judgment.

Closing reflection

The workplace is now a digital space as much as it is a physical one. The law has evolved alongside those spaces, reminding us that trust, reputation, and fairness still matter, even in a world where everything happens on a screen.

Conviction.co.za

Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.

Cantamessa case employment law Labour Court social media workplace misconduct
Share. Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr Telegram Email
Ann-Suhet Marx

Director and Head of Litigation, Van Deventer Dowlath & Marx Incorporated.

Related Posts

SARU HR manager’s feud with boss escalated from grievance to dismissal

October 23, 2026

Police captain loses eight-month pay award because promotion dispute was filed too late

October 8, 2026

Employer’s in-house lawyer cannot commission affidavits in a dispute she is involved in

October 5, 2026
Leave A Reply Cancel Reply

Prove your humanity: 5   +   8   =  

Subscribe to our newsletter:
Top Posts

Your driving licence at the gate: What estates can actually legally scan

Sponsor: My Estate LifeSeptember 6, 2026

Making sectional title rules that work: A practical guide

January 17, 2025

Protection order among the consequences of trespassing in an ‘Exclusive Use Area’

December 31, 2024

Between a rock and a foul-smelling place

November 27, 2024
Don't Miss
Special Reports
5 Mins Read

Public interest law gathering to tackle land justice, migration and threats to human rights

By Kennedy MudzuliOctober 25, 20265 Mins Read

The Public Interest Law Gathering 2026 will bring lawyers, activists and academics together at Wits to discuss constitutional rights, land justice, migration and the cost of defending human rights.

The reinstatement of Lulama Oliphant: What a government spokesperson really is

October 24, 2026

Sebokeng grandmother secures title deed after years of dispute with brother-in-law

October 24, 2026

The ANC could pay the electoral price for a Home Affairs directive issued under a DA minister

October 23, 2026
Stay In Touch
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • WhatsApp
Demo
About Us
About Us

Helping South Africans to navigate the legal landscape; providing accessible legal information; and giving a voice to those seeking justice.

Facebook X (Twitter) YouTube WhatsApp Twitch RSS
Latest posts

Your driving licence at the gate: What estates can actually legally scan

Sponsor: My Estate LifeSeptember 6, 2026

Making sectional title rules that work: A practical guide

January 17, 2025

Protection order among the consequences of trespassing in an ‘Exclusive Use Area’

December 31, 2024
OUR PICKS

LPC warns against unregulated legal services, clarifies legal consultant ruling

October 17, 2026

The R400,000 award for ‘white trash’ and ‘dumb people’ insults that cost a woman her home

October 21, 2026

FNB customer demands R15,100 refund after fraudsters drain account using stolen phone

October 17, 2026
© 2026 Conviction.
  • Home
  • Buy Now
  • Law & Justice

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.

Powered by
Necessary cookies enable essential site features like secure log-ins and consent preference adjustments. They do not store personal data.
None
Functional cookies support features like content sharing on social media, collecting feedback, and enabling third-party tools.
None
Analytical cookies track visitor interactions, providing insights on metrics like visitor count, bounce rate, and traffic sources.
None
Advertisement cookies deliver personalized ads based on your previous visits and analyze the effectiveness of ad campaigns.
None
Unclassified cookies are cookies that we are in the process of classifying, together with the providers of individual cookies.
None
Powered by