The Labour Appeal Court has upheld the dismissal of a former employee of Siyanda Bakgatla Platinum Mine.
Image: AI Generated
The Labour Appeal Court has upheld the dismissal of a former employee of Siyanda Bakgatla Platinum Mine, ruling that his persistent refusal to follow lawful instructions and his conduct amounted to gross insubordination and dishonesty.
The court dismissed an appeal brought by the Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union (AMCU) on behalf of Otshepeng Kgotlang.
Kgotlang, who had been employed at the mine since 2007 and later became a team leader and AMCU branch secretary, was dismissed in 2020 after refusing repeated instructions from his supervisors to report for underground duty.
At the time, he was serving as a part-time shop steward. The mine maintained that, under its recognition agreement, shop stewards were required to perform their normal duties unless formally released to carry out union activities.
Management had also issued a memorandum in January 2020 reinforcing that shop stewards must report to their designated work areas unless authorised otherwise.
Kgotlang faced two charges, including gross insubordination for refusing to obey instructions to work underground and clocking in for work but failing to perform his duties. Following a disciplinary hearing, he was found guilty on both counts and dismissed.
During arbitration, Kgotlang argued that a so-called “gentleman’s agreement” existed between union leaders and management, allowing shop stewards to remain on the surface instead of working underground. However, both the arbitrator and later courts found no evidence to support the existence of such an agreement.
The court also rejected Kgotlang’s claim that he was unaware of company policies and the 2020 memorandum, describing this as “highly improbable” given his senior role as a shop steward responsible for representing employees.
Evidence showed that Kgotlang was issued with multiple instructions by supervisors to report underground, which he ignored. Meanwhile, another union official complied with the same instructions.
The court found that Kgotlang’s conduct was not a misunderstanding but a deliberate and persistent refusal to obey lawful instructions.
On the issue of “clocking fraud”, the court held that Kgotlang knowingly clocked in to receive payment while failing to perform any work. This, the court said, amounted to dishonest conduct that justified dismissal.
In February 2025, the Labour Court dismissed Kgotlang’s review application, finding that the arbitration award was reasonable.
On appeal, the Labour Appeal Court agreed, emphasising that a single act of defiance can constitute insubordination, persistent refusal to obey lawful instructions undermines workplace discipline, and dishonesty, even without explicit proof of a breakdown in trust, can justify dismissal.
The court concluded that the arbitrator’s decision was reasonable and that there was no basis to interfere with it. As a result, his appeal was dismissed, with no order as to costs.
sinenhlanhla.masilela@iol.co.za
IOL News
Get your news on the go, click here to join the IOL News WhatsApp channel.