The Labour Court’s decision in Transnet v NTM obo Molope (2025) offers a critical reminder that professional conduct and communication channels matter — even when employees believe they are raising legitimate workplace concerns.

The case involved employees who sent a series of threatening and insubordinate emails to senior managers, bypassing internal grievance procedures and directly challenging managerial authority. These emails, sent under the guise of union-related communication, contained inflammatory and disrespectful language.

When disciplinary proceedings were initiated, the employees attempted to delay the process through medical certificates, postponements, and even urgent court applications, all of which contributed to significant procedural disruption.

Following dismissal, the CCMA Commissioner found the charges to be vague and ruled in favour of reinstatement. Transnet took the matter on review to the Labour Court, which ultimately found the commissioner’s award to be unreasonable and reinstated the dismissals.

The Labour Court dealt with four key issues:

1. Proceeding in the Employee’s Absence:
   The employees had submitted medical notes to delay the hearing, yet also engaged in litigation and communication suggesting they were fit for work. The Court held that the chairperson acted reasonably in proceeding in their absence, noting that fairness cannot be exploited through repeated delay tactics.
2. Clarity of the Charges:
   The Commissioner’s view that the charges were too vague was rejected. The Labour Court confirmed that the misconduct was clearly articulated — the employees had sent disrespectful and intimidating emails directly to management, outside formal grievance channels.
3. Nature of the Misconduct:
   The Court emphasised that while employees — particularly union representatives — have the right to raise concerns, how they do so matters. The tone, content, and chosen communication platform crossed the line from expression to insubordination.
4. Reasonableness of the Award:
   Applying the Sidumo v Rustenburg Platinum Mines Ltd (2007) test, the Court found that the commissioner’s award was not one a reasonable decision-maker could reach. The reinstatement was therefore set aside, and the dismissals were confirmed as substantively and procedurally fair.