Labour Court Upholds Dismissal for Sleeping on Duty

A Reminder on Workplace Discipline

In a recent Labour Court judgment in Johannesburg, the court upheld the dismissal of a long-serving employee of the University of Johannesburg (UJ) who was terminated after being found sleeping on duty, reinforcing employers’ rights to enforce discipline where required.

Case Background

The employee, who had served UJ for 34 years as a protection officer, was dismissed in July 2024 after a disciplinary process concluded that she had been sleeping while on duty and had breached the employer’s conduct expectations. Upon receiving her dismissal letter, she was advised that any dispute regarding the fairness of her termination had to be referred to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) within 30 days, as prescribed under the Labour Relations Act.

However, the referral was lodged late. The employee’s representative referred the matter on 4 September 2024, well beyond the 30-day deadline. While the CCMA requested that a condonation application be filed to justify the delay, this application itself was also significantly late — filed on 25 September — and the commissioner refused condonation, effectively precluding the dispute from progressing.

Labour Court’s Analysis

The employee then approached the Labour Court, seeking review of the CCMA commissioner’s refusal to grant condonation. She argued that several factors — including her advanced age, long service record, illness, purported clean disciplinary record, and prospects of success — should have justified condonation of the late referral. She also challenged the decision to decide the matter on paper without oral submissions.

The Labour Court, however, found no basis for setting aside the commissioner’s ruling:

Incomplete Explanation for Delay:
- The court emphasised that an applicant seeking condonation must provide a full and reasonable explanation for the entire period of non-compliance with procedural timelines. While the initial delay might have been marginally excusable, the employee failed to account for a 20-day gap between being informed of the need for condonation and actually filing the application.
Insufficient Evidence of Illness:
- Claims that illness was responsible for the delay were found to be implausible and unsupported, especially considering that her legal representative had not acted in a timely manner.
Lawful Exercise of Discretion:
- The court concluded that the commissioner had acted within her discretion and in accordance with CCMA rules and the interests of justice. Deciding the matter on the papers was permissible and did not cause unfairness.

Ultimately, the Labour Court dismissed the review application without costs, finding no justification to overturn the commissioner’s condonation ruling.

Key Lessons for Employers

This matter underscores several important points for HR practitioners and employers:

Strict Adherence to Time Limits:
- Employment legislation provides clear timeframes for referring disputes to the CCMA or bargaining councils. Failure to comply — even by experienced legal representatives — can be fatal to a claim. Employers should ensure that affected employees are properly advised of these deadlines and document that advice.
Condonation Requirements Are Rigorous:
- Both the initial non-compliance and any subsequent delay in filing a condonation application must be justified with detailed explanation and credible evidence. Vague or incomplete explanations are unlikely to succeed.
Discipline and Workplace Conduct:
- Long service alone does not immunise an employee from disciplinary action. Misconduct — including sleeping on duty, particularly in safety-sensitive roles such as protection services — can justify dismissal where properly investigated and fairly processed.
Role of CCMA and Labour Court:
- The Labour Court will not lightly intervene in CCMA decisions that fall within a commissioner’s discretionary domain, particularly where procedures and rules have been correctly applied.

Conclusion

The UJ dismissal case serves as a practical reminder that procedural compliance and thorough explanation are vital in both disciplinary outcomes and dispute referrals. Employers investing in robust HR processes and clear communication around discipline and dispute timelines are better positioned to defend their decisions effectively before arbitration forums and the courts.

📌 Unsure whether your disciplinary processes and dismissal procedures will stand up to scrutiny?
HR Consult supports businesses with compliant disciplinary processes, hearings, and labour dispute readiness.

👉 Contact us today for practical labour law guidance that protects your business and supports defensible decision-making.
📩 Let’s get it right — before it reaches the CCMA or Labour Court.

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.