National Health Laboratory Services v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR2790/21) [2025] ZALCJHB 161 (7 May 2025)

Case Note

National Health Laboratory Services v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others, Case No: JR 2790-21, heard on 12 December 2024 and delivered on 07 May 2025.

Reportability

This case is reportable as it involves a penalty review of an arbitration award where the decision on the disciplinary action is critically examined. The case is significant because it addresses the interplay between employment disciplinary procedures and the unique challenges presented by the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in relation to an employee’s vulnerability and the resulting risk assessment process. The judgment offers insights into how courts balance employer protocols with employee rights within an unprecedented public health crisis.

Cases Cited

There are no key judicial cases explicitly referenced with full citations in this judgment.

Legislation Cited

The judgment references the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995, as amended. It also refers to the regulatory context provided by the COVID-19 Occupational Health and Safety Directive and the Direction issued by the Minister of Employment and Labour in terms of Regulations 4(10).

Rules of Court Cited

No specific rules of court are cited in this judgment.

HEADNOTE

Summary

This case concerns a penalty review of an arbitration award regarding the disciplinary matter involving Mr Happy Kgotleng Molotsi. The commissioner had previously found that the dismissal of Mr Molotsi was substantively unfair, ordering his reinstatement without backpay while imposing a 12-month final written warning. The court upheld this decision, reasoning that Mr Molotsi’s failure to return physically to work during the COVID-19 pandemic was justified due to his status as a highly vulnerable employee. The judgment also underscores the importance of a fair and transparent risk assessment process during public health crises.

Key Issues

The key issues in this case include the fairness and adequacy of the penalty imposed on Mr Molotsi, the appropriateness of the risk assessment process conducted under rapidly changing pandemic protocols, and whether the disciplinary procedures followed by the National Health Laboratory Services met the required standards of procedural fairness. The court also considered the impact of Mr Molotsi’s pre-existing medical conditions intertwined with the exceptional circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Held

The court held that the commissioner's decision to reinstate Mr Molotsi without backpay and impose a final written warning for 12 months was reasonable under the given circumstances. The ruling confirmed that the employer’s decision was informed by material considerations, particularly his vulnerability and the challenges posed by the pandemic, and that the penalty review was conducted in line with the relevant statutory and regulatory framework.

THE FACTS

Mr Molotsi was employed by the National Health Laboratory Services from 1 November 2016 and held the position of IT Project Manager at the time of his dismissal on 28 October 2020. The disciplinary process against him commenced with a hearing on four charges of misconduct, including unauthorized absence, failure to follow lawful instructions, and non-compliance with the NHLS’s risk assessment and employment protocols during the COVID-19 pandemic. At the time, the national lockdown and subsequent adjustments to work protocols added significant complexity to the employer-employee relationship.

The employer implemented a risk assessment process designed to determine the appropriate working conditions in light of the pandemic. Mr Molotsi’s medical vulnerabilities—advanced chronic kidney disease, hypertension, and other health complications—were substantiated by medical documentation, leading to recommendations for remote work. However, after a series of emails and the completion of a risk assessment which classified him as a medium-risk employee, he was directed to return to the workplace, triggering further disputes regarding the fairness of the process.

Furthermore, the ongoing correspondence between Mr Molotsi and the NHLS, involving both the Human Resources and Occupational Health Safety committees, illustrated the tension between the need to adhere to company policies and the imperative to protect vulnerable employees. These factual complexities ultimately provided the factual backdrop for the penalty review of the arbitration award.

THE ISSUES

The central legal questions in this case revolved around whether the disciplinary process and the resulting penalty imposed on Mr Molotsi were procedurally and substantively fair under the circumstances. The court had to decide whether the risk assessment process, conducted during a period marked by the COVID-19 pandemic, was carried out transparently and in accordance with the applicable statutory guidelines. Additionally, the court assessed if the recommencement of employment with a 12-month final written warning, without backpay, was justifiable when balanced against both the employer’s policies and the health vulnerabilities of the employee.

The court also considered whether the employee’s arguments regarding the discrepancies in risk assessment and the inconsistency in remote work allowances had any bearing on the overall fairness of the disciplinary process. Finally, the issue of whether the award should be set aside, corrected, or remitted for further adjudication was also examined in depth.

ANALYSIS

The court’s analysis began by reviewing the procedural history of Mr Molotsi’s disciplinary case and the commissioner's award. The judge noted that the contextual factors, particularly the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic and the employee’s vulnerability due to serious health conditions, played a crucial role in justifying the discretion exercised by the commissioner. In reviewing the process, the court emphasized the importance of considering both the factual matrix and the employer’s adherence to statutory obligations under the Labour Relations Act.

In a detailed examination of the risk assessment procedure, the court found that despite procedural irregularities, the overall approach taken by the NHLS in classifying Mr Molotsi’s risk was reasonable. The dialogue between Mr Molotsi, HR, and the OHS committee illustrated a genuine attempt by the employer to balance operational requirements with employee health concerns. The court acknowledged the unique challenges of managing workforce health during a national emergency, and that these challenges, while complex, did not invalidate the employer’s actions.

Furthermore, the court’s analysis recognized that the penalty of a 12-month final written warning effectively reflected a measured response to the misconduct allegations in the light of the mitigating circumstances. The absence of backpay was seen as evidence that the disciplinary action was calibrated to the extraordinary conditions of the time rather than an overly punitive measure. Thus, the court reaffirmed the reasonableness and fairness of the commissioner's original award.

REMEDY

The remedy provided by the court was to uphold the commissioner's decision. The court confirmed that reinstating Mr Molotsi without backpay along with imposing a 12-month final written warning was a fair and just outcome under the circumstances. This resolution ensured that while the employee’s employment was continued, appropriate disciplinary measures remained in place to reflect the seriousness of the misconduct allegations and the contextual challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic.

This outcome effectively distinguished between procedural missteps and the broader contextual factors, thereby reinforcing the principle that remedial decisions must take into account extraordinary circumstances while adhering to statutory guidelines. The remedy also served to affirm the integrity of the risk assessment process and the fairness of the disciplinary procedure.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

A fundamental legal principle demonstrated in this case is the necessity for procedural fairness in disciplinary actions, even when exceptional circumstances such as a pandemic are present. The judgment reinforces that an employer’s decision, when contextualized within material considerations such as an employee’s health vulnerabilities, can justify a less conventional approach to penalty imposition.

The case also establishes that the integrity of risk assessment procedures is crucial, and that any deviations or perceived inconsistencies must be balanced against the overall operational and health imperatives during a crisis. Finally, the judgment reiterates the importance of the Labour Relations Act in providing a framework for fair and equitable treatment of employees undergoing disciplinary proceedings, ensuring that both employer and employee rights are protected even in challenging times.