Labour Court rules against employee for failing to his report absence to his manager.
Image: AI Generated
The Labour Court in Cape Town has dismissed a review application brought by an employee challenging his dismissal after he failed to report his absence to his manager.
Judge Robert Lagrange ruled against Zingisa Mqulwana, who sought to overturn an arbitration award that had found his dismissal by Webhelp SA Outsourcing (Pty) Ltd to be both substantively and procedurally fair.
The dispute arose from Mqulwana’s dismissal following his failure to inform his direct line manager of his absence from work on April 21, 2021. Although he had experienced a nosebleed at work two days earlier and subsequently obtained a medical certificate booking him off until 22 April, the court heard that he did not properly communicate the duration of his absence to his employer.
While Mqulwana informed an operations manager on 20 April that he had been booked off, he failed to provide a copy of the medical certificate or specify how long he would be absent. Crucially, he did not contact his direct line manager at all on 21 April, despite company rules requiring such communication.
Efforts by the line manager to reach him on that day were unsuccessful. Mqulwana later explained that his cellphone had been stolen, preventing him from receiving messages or calls. However, evidence showed that he had access to family members with phones and could have used alternative means to communicate.
The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) arbitrator found that Mqulwana had breached a known workplace rule requiring employees to notify their managers of absences. The arbitrator emphasised that producing a medical certificate after the fact did not absolve an employee of the duty to inform their employer in advance or on the day of absence.
The arbitrator further noted that Mqulwana had a history of similar misconduct, having received three prior warnings for failing to communicate his absences. On that basis, dismissal was deemed an appropriate sanction.
In his application to the Labour Court, Mqulwana—who represented himself—argued that his dismissal was unfair because his employer was aware that he was ill. He also suggested that he had been discriminated against on the basis of his illness.
Judge Lagrange rejected these arguments, noting that Mqulwana had not properly raised a discrimination claim during arbitration. The court found that his review application largely repeated arguments already considered and rejected, effectively amounting to an appeal rather than a valid review.
The judge concluded that the arbitrator’s findings were reasonable and supported by the evidence.
“It cannot be said that the factual findings and the arbitrator’s decision are ones that no reasonable arbitrator could have reached,” the court stated.
The court held that obtaining a medical certificate does not replace the requirement to notify employers timeously.
The Labour Court dismissed the review application and made no order as to costs.
IOL News