labourcourtsJan Truter of Labourwise notes that remote and hybrid work arrangements have become a normal feature of modern employment. But, what happens when an employer decides to end such an arrangement and instructs the employee to return to the office?

The recent Labour Court judgment in Medici Energy (Pty) Ltd v Bennet NO and Others (2025) illustrates that the answer is not always straightforward. The employee had worked remotely for more than two years, a concession initially granted because of her son’s serious medical condition. On 11 May 2022, the employee requested grievance forms to lodge complaints against two managers. HR only provided the forms after a follow-up request on 9 June. The very next day, the company instructed the employee to return to its Cape Town office from Monday 13 June. No consultation preceded the instruction. When the employee did not comply, she was dismissed for gross insubordination.

At arbitration, the CCMA commissioner found the instruction unreasonable and arbitrary. He found that a genuine work-from-home agreement existed; the notice to return to work was inadequate; and the alleged justification of “a decline in Covid-19 cases” was not acceptable. The timing, immediately after the employee had pursued a grievance, suggested a retaliatory motive rather than a legitimate operational requirement. The dismissal was found to be substantively unfair. On review in the Labour Court (LC), the company argued that no reasonable commissioner could have reached this conclusion. But, the LC disagreed and held that the CCMA’s findings were well grounded in the evidence. It upheld the award of eight months’ compensation to the employee.

The lessons from the case are said to highlight the importance of the following: formalisation of agreements; inclusion of a termination clause; actions that are reasonably in the absence of a clear agreement; and an appropriate response if the employee refuses to return.


Get other news reports at the SA LabourNews home page