- The court found that the employer’s cumulative conduct rendered the employment relationship intolerable.
- Rejecting a medical certificate, accusing the employee of dishonesty, and withholding salary were central to the finding.
- The absence of a formal grievance and the availability of alternatives did not defeat the employee’s claim.
The Labour Court found that Van de Venter Mojapelo (Pty) Ltd’s handling of an employee’s medical condition crossed the line after it rejected a sick note, accused the employee of dishonesty, withdrew its earlier acceptance of her medical explanation, and withheld the bulk of her salary.
Acting Judge PS MacKenzie held that this cumulative conduct destroyed the trust relationship and justified the employee’s resignation.
The dispute arose after Adele Lewis submitted a medical certificate confirming that she was suffering from stress, anxiety, and depression. The employer was aware of her medical condition and its seriousness. Instead of responding with care, the employer escalated the situation in a manner the court found incompatible with the obligations of an employer.
Lewis resigned from Van de Venter Mojapelo (Pty) Ltd following a breakdown in the employment relationship. The dispute centred on the employer’s response to her medical condition and the consequences that followed.
The matter was initially referred to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration, where the dispute resolution process was triggered, before ultimately being determined by the Labour Court.
The court noted that the employment relationship had already become strained. There had been a breakdown in communication between the parties and the termination of remote working arrangements. While these factors were not, on their own, decisive, the court held that they formed an important backdrop, showing that the relationship was already fragile before the sick note dispute arose.
Employer response to medical condition
The court held that once the employer received the medical certificate and accompanying information, it was required to respond with an appropriate degree of care and sensitivity.
Instead, the employer adopted an adversarial approach. It questioned the legitimacy of the medical certificate without proper investigation, and went further by “accusing the applicant of malingering and dishonesty.”
The court found that this was done without taking any steps whatsoever to verify the medical evidence or to engage constructively with the employee’s condition. In addition, the employer withdrew its earlier acceptance of the medical explanation, deepening the dispute.
This failure to follow a fair and objective process, particularly in the context of a disclosed mental health condition, weighed heavily in the court’s assessment.
Withholding salary and cumulative conduct
The situation escalated further when the employer withheld the bulk of Lewis’s salary. This was not treated by the court as a separate or neutral dispute. Instead, the court viewed the withholding of remuneration as part of a broader pattern of conduct. The judgment makes clear that this was not an isolated payroll issue but formed part of the very conduct that undermined the employment relationship.
The court stated, “The cumulative effect of this conduct, viewed objectively, was to destroy the trust relationship.” The court did not assess each action in isolation but considered how the employer’s conduct, taken together, affected the employee.
Constructive dismissal and intolerability
The central legal question was whether the employer had made continued employment intolerable, thereby justifying resignation and constituting constructive dismissal.
The court found that this threshold had been met. It emphasised that the employee was effectively accused of dishonesty at a time when she was, based upon undisputed medical evidence, medically unfit for work.
In these circumstances, the court held that the trust relationship had broken down irreparably. The combination of rejecting medical evidence, accusing dishonesty, withdrawing acceptance, and withholding salary left the employee with no reasonable alternative but to resign.
The court assessed the employer’s conduct cumulatively against the backdrop of an already fragile employment relationship, treating the sick note dispute and salary withholding as the tipping point, and applied an objective test of intolerability rather than relying only on the employee’s subjective experience.
Grievance and internal remedies
The employer argued that the employee had not lodged a formal grievance and that this undermined her claim. The court rejected this argument.
It found that Lewis had engaged directly with senior decision-makers within the company in an attempt to resolve the dispute. Those engagements did not produce any meaningful resolution. Instead, the employer maintained its position, including the allegations of dishonesty and the withholding of remuneration.
In those circumstances, the court held that the absence of a formal grievance was not decisive. The facts demonstrated that further internal processes would not have provided effective relief.
The court also rejected the argument that the employee should have pursued alternative remedies, such as a separate claim for unpaid salary. It held that this artificially separated issues that were, in reality, part of a single course of conduct contributing to intolerability.
CCMA referral and evidentiary arguments
The employer further contended that certain issues relied upon by the employee had not been fully raised in the CCMA referral.
The court rejected this argument, making clear that referral forms are not pleadings and are not intended to contain a complete legal or factual case. It explained that their purpose is to initiate the dispute resolution process, not to define issues with precision. As a result, no negative inference could be drawn from the level of detail in the referral.
Conclusion
The Labour Court’s message was that where an employer rejects a sick note without investigation, accuses an employee of dishonesty, withdraws prior acceptance of medical evidence, and withholds salary, it risks destroying the employment relationship.
On these facts, the court found that the line had been crossed and that the employee’s resignation amounted to constructive dismissal. The Labour Court upheld the finding of constructive dismissal and awarded Lewis compensation on a just and equitable basis in terms of Section 194(1), which included the unpaid portion of her November 2023 salary as part of the overall compensatory award, while making no order as to costs.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
