- Vhangwele Ravele refused Bombela’s mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy, citing bodily integrity and fears about the vaccine’s possible effects.
- The Labour Court found that he provided no reasonable basis for his refusal and that his proposed regular PCR testing was improbable on the evidence.
- Judge Daniels set aside an arbitration award ordering his reinstatement and six months’ back pay, finding his dismissal procedurally and substantively fair.
A Gautrain conductor who refused mandatory COVID-19 vaccination failed to provide a reasonable basis for his objection or establish a workable alternative that would allow him to continue performing his duties, the Labour Court in Johannesburg has found.
Judge RN Daniels held that Bombela Operating Company had compelling operational and health-safety reasons for requiring vaccination, given the conductor’s regular contact with passengers and colleagues.
Bodily integrity and concerns about vaccine safety
Vhangwele Ravele, who worked as a train conductor for Bombela, objected to the company’s mandatory vaccination policy on 25 January 2022. He argued that vaccination infringed his constitutional right to bodily integrity and that the long-term effects of the vaccine were unknown. He also raised concerns about its ingredients, possible genetic effects and reproductive consequences.
Bombela’s vaccination review panel rejected his objection because he had not provided evidence of his practices or informing doctrines, or a reasonable and substantiated basis for refusing vaccination. The company gave him another opportunity to comply, but he remained opposed to vaccination.
During an incapacity hearing on 24 March 2022, Ravele proposed submitting PCR test results every 72 hours. He testified that he was willing to pay the full cost himself. However, his duties required him to assist the train driver, attend to operational and safety matters, respond to passenger queries and interact regularly with colleagues and members of the public.
Bombela maintained that these working conditions made his proposed alternative unsuitable. The company also said it could not accommodate him in another role because he was employed as a train conductor and could not perform his work remotely.
Employer’s duty to protect workers and passengers
Judge Daniels found that the evidence provided compelling reasons for Bombela’s operational need to introduce mandatory vaccination during the pandemic. The company had to consider not only Ravele’s constitutional right to bodily integrity but also its responsibility to maintain a working environment that was safe for employees and members of the public.
The evidence showed that Bombela had made information and support available to employees who had concerns about vaccination. Its occupational medical practitioner, Dr Millicent Tlakula, testified that employees received education about COVID-19, vaccination and possible side effects. The company organised vaccination drives and provided opportunities for employees to raise questions through individual and virtual meetings.
Tlakula said Ravele did not approach her on his own initiative, although she had made her mobile number available to employees. He met her on 15 February 2022 after the company arranged the consultation, but remained opposed to vaccination.
Ravele also testified that he had sought advice from his pastor rather than asking NUMSA to engage a scientist to address his concerns. Under cross-examination, he did not explain the basis for his fears about the vaccine altering his genes or affecting his reproductive capacity.
The judge found that Ravele had provided no reasonable basis for his objections and remained unwilling to reconsider his position unless the Constitutional Court ruled that vaccination was safe. His proposed PCR testing arrangement was also rejected as improbable on the evidence.
Arbitration award set aside
Bombela dismissed Ravele for incapacity on 25 March 2022. The dispute went to arbitration, where the commissioner found the dismissal procedurally and substantively unfair and ordered the company to reinstate him and pay six months’ remuneration as back pay.
Bombela challenged the award in the Labour Court, arguing that the commissioner had focused on alleged procedural defects in adopting the vaccination plan instead of properly determining whether the dismissal was fair. The dispute included disagreements about consultation with NUMSA and the timing of the risk assessment.
Judge Daniels found that the commissioner had failed to consider material evidence and had misconceived the nature of the fairness enquiry. The judge held that even if the consultation process had been deficient, this did not prevent an employer from introducing and enforcing a mandatory vaccination policy to protect workplace health and safety.
The court also found that the commissioner had incorrectly relied on the date the risk assessment was signed, rather than properly considering evidence that it had been finalised earlier. The commissioner’s material errors rendered the arbitration outcome unreasonable.
The Labour Court reviewed and set aside the arbitration award and replaced it with an order declaring Ravele’s dismissal procedurally and substantively fair. Judge Daniels delivered the judgment on 29 September 2026.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
