Lawful Instructions Are Not Optional: Lessons from PFG Building Glass

The Labour Court has once again confirmed that employees cannot ignore lawful workplace instructions under the guise of safety concerns that are unfounded or unreported. The case of NUMSA obo Nkosi & Others v PFG Building Glass serves as a reminder that disobedience, even when collective, can amount to gross insubordination.

Five employees at PFG Building Glass, all members of the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA), were dismissed for gross insubordination after they refused to attend a scheduled workplace meeting.

Their defence was that the meeting venue — located near operating forklifts and machinery — posed safety risks. They argued that their refusal was justified because the instruction to attend was unreasonable.

The matter was referred to the National Bargaining Council for the Chemical Industry (NBCCI), where the commissioner found the dismissals to be substantively fair. NUMSA then applied to the Labour Court to review and set aside the arbitration award.

Legal Issue

The Court had to determine whether the dismissals were substantively fair, and whether the commissioner’s award met the reasonableness standard required in review proceedings under the Labour Relations Act (LRA).

Applicable Legal Framework

Section 145 of the LRA governs applications to review arbitration awards.
In Sidumo v Rustenburg Platinum Mines Ltd (2007), the Constitutional Court established the “reasonableness test” — an award stands unless no reasonable decision-maker could have reached the same conclusion.
Gold Fields Mining SA v CCMA (2014) and Fidelity Cash Management Service v CCMA (2008) confirmed that the focus of a review is the outcome, not the process.
ABSA Bank Ltd v Naidu (2015) held that disciplinary consistency is a relevant but not decisive consideration.

Court’s Findings

The Labour Court agreed with the commissioner that the employees had defied lawful and reasonable instructions issued by multiple levels of management.

The alleged safety risks were never substantiated. No evidence demonstrated that the venue posed a real hazard, and the employees had not filed a formal grievance about their concerns.
Their refusal, carried out openly and collectively, amounted to gross insubordination.
NUMSA’s argument of inconsistent discipline — that other employees had not been dismissed — was rejected as an afterthought, raised long after the fact.
The commissioner’s credibility findings against a key union witness were upheld, with the Court emphasising that such findings are not easily disturbed on review.
The commissioner had properly assessed the sanction of dismissal, taking into account the seriousness of the defiance, the employees’ lack of remorse, and the need to preserve managerial authority.

Outcome

The Court found that the arbitration award was both reasonable and supported by the evidence. NUMSA’s review application was dismissed, with no order as to costs.

Key Takeaways

For Employers:

Employees are obliged to follow lawful and reasonable instructions. Persistent defiance can justify dismissal.
Document disciplinary processes carefully — including the context of instructions, safety precautions, and employee responses.

For Employees and Unions:

Safety concerns must be raised formally and in good faith, not used to justify defiance.
Review applications are not appeals — the focus is on whether the commissioner’s decision was reasonable, not whether it was perfect.

The Bottom Line

The Labour Court’s decision underscores a core workplace principle:
Obedience to lawful instructions is non-negotiable. Disagreement does not excuse defiance — and unfounded “safety” objections will not shield employees from the consequences of gross insubordination.

💼 Need guidance on managing insubordination or disciplinary procedures?

HR Consult’s labour law specialists can help you navigate complex employee relations with confidence and compliance.

Office: 012 997 0037

E-mail: info@hrconsultsa.co.za

Adapted by HR Consult, specialists in South African labour and employment law compliance.

Our Services

Quick Menu

Working Hours

A Proud HR Consult, a division of BEE Analyst, is a proud Level 4 B-BBEE contributor.