Lewis v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (C302/2024) [2025] ZALCCT 117 (25 November 2025)

Case Note

Adele Lewis v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others
Case No: C302/2024
Date Delivered: 25 November 2025

Reportability

This case addresses significant aspects of constructive dismissal within the South African context, wherein the court outlines the conditions under which an employee can be said to have been constructively dismissed. Given its implications for employers regarding reasonable accommodations and the handling of employee grievances, as well as the procedural requirements for such determinations, the case is deemed reportable. It offers clarity on the balance between operational necessity and employee rights, especially in the context of workplace relations and employee mental health.

Cases Cited

• National Health Laboratory Service v Yona and Others (2015) 36 ILJ 2259 (LAC)
• Murray v Minister of Defence 2009 (3) SA 130 (SCA)
• Old Mutual Group Schemes v D Dreyer & Another (1999) 20 ILJ 2030 (LAC)
• Albany Bakeries Ltd v Van Wyk and Others (2005) 26 ILJ 2142 (LAC)
• Sanlam Life Insurance Limited v Mogomatsi and Others [2023] 11 BLLR 1166 (LAC)

Legislation Cited

• Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995, specifically section 186(1)(e) and section 193(1)(c)

Rules of Court Cited

• Labour Court Rules (specifically, Rule 57)

HEADNOTE

Summary

The Labour Court dealt with an application by Adele Lewis, who sought to challenge the earlier ruling regarding her constructive dismissal from Van De Venter Mojapelo (Pty) Ltd. The court ultimately found that Lewis had proven her case of constructive dismissal, outlining that conditions made by the employer had rendered her continued employment intolerable. The court ordered compensation due to the unfair dismissal determination, diverging from the commissioner's original findings.

Key Issues

The significant legal issues addressed in this case include the following:

1. Whether the applicant's conditions of employment became intolerable due to the employer's actions.
2. The extent to which the employer’s conduct breached the implied term of mutual trust and confidence.
3. The proper response of the employer upon receiving medical evidence regarding the applicant's capability to work.

Held

The Labour Court overturned the decision of the commissioner, determining that the applicant, Adele Lewis, had been constructively dismissed. The court found that the Third Respondent’s actions resulted in a significant breakdown in trust that made the work environment intolerable, thus ruling that the dismissal was both constructive and unfair. The applicant was granted compensation in the amount of R310,571.19.

THE FACTS

Adele Lewis commenced her employment with Van De Venter Mojapelo in March 2019 under a fixed-term contract as a revenue manager. Due to personal circumstances arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, she relocated to Cape Town with the understanding that her arrangement might have been permanent, despite the employer viewing it as temporary. The relationship between Lewis and management evolved, with increasing strain culminating in the employer's decision to cancel remote work arrangements.

Subsequent to this decision, Lewis experienced increased stress and anxiety linked to workplace conditions. After submitting a medical leave request supported by a physician’s letter, the employer first acknowledged her condition and subsequently retracted that acknowledgment while questioning her integrity. Following a series of confrontations relating to her health and the employer’s operational demands, Lewis ultimately decided to resign.

THE ISSUES

The primary legal questions the court evaluated included whether Lewis's resignation constituted a constructive dismissal under section 186(1)(e) of the Labour Relations Act and whether the employer's actions were such that continued employment became intolerable. The court also examined whether Lewis had any reasonable alternative remedies available upon experiencing difficult workplace conditions.

ANALYSIS

The court's reasoning delineated between the concepts of mere unhappiness and actual intolerable working conditions. Drawing on the principles set out in previous case law, the judgment emphasized that the employer’s conduct must demonstrate a breach of trust and confidence to result in constructive dismissal. The court found that the Third Respondent’s abrupt termination of remote work, coupled with negative treatment surrounding Lewis’s medical condition, contributed significantly to her feeling of intolerability.

Moreover, the court criticized the Third Respondent’s handling of Lewis’s health concerns, asserting that their reaction to her medical leave request was not only ungrounded but also detrimental to employee morale and trust. The decision of the Third Respondent to question her medical absence without verifying the authenticity of her medical documents undermined the employee-employer relationship, establishing grounds for constructive dismissal.

REMEDY

The court substituted the original ruling, declaring that Lewis had been constructively dismissed and ordering the Third Respondent to pay her compensation amounting to R310,571.19. This amount included both remuneration owed for the month of November and compensation for lost earnings due to the dismissal from December 2023 through February 2024.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

This judgment reaffirms key legal principles surrounding constructive dismissal in South Africa, including the necessity for employers to maintain a level of conduct that supports mutual trust. It clarifies that the cumulative actions of an employer can lead to constructive dismissal conditions, and the absence of a reasonable alternative for the employee can be pivotal in such determinations. Furthermore, the emphasis on the employer adopting a compassionate and supportive approach when dealing with employee health issues highlights the need for sensitivity in labor relations, particularly during periods of organizational stress.