- with Finance and Tax Executives
- with readers working within the Accounting & Consultancy and Metals & Mining industries
Dladla & Others v Motor Industries Bargaining Council & Others (Feltex Automotive (Pty) Ltd) – LAC, 26 January 2026
Overview
The Labour Appeal Court (LAC) has confirmed that employees who deliberately refuse to comply with lawful and reasonable workplace instructions, and who participate in unauthorised gatherings on company premises, may be fairly dismissed for gross misconduct. The judgment reinforces employers' authority to maintain discipline during operational changes. It also clarifies that overly technical challenges to disciplinary charges will not succeed where employees understood the substance of the allegations against them.
Facts
The appellants were employees of Feltex Automotive (Pty) Ltd working in a department affected by the cancellation of a BMW supply contract. Following a section 189 consultation process, retrenchments were avoided and employees were redeployed to other departments on their existing terms and conditions.
On 12 March 2018, the appellants gathered in the company canteen during working hours, stating they were waiting for a union organiser. Management denied that any meeting had been authorised and instructed the employees to return to work. Two written ultimatums were issued, warning of disciplinary consequences. The appellants refused to comply and remained in the canteen for several hours.
Charges and Proceedings
The employees were dismissed for participating in an unauthorised meeting and for failing to obey lawful instructions and insubordination. An arbitrator found the dismissals substantively fair. The Labour Court upheld that finding, and the employees appealed to the Labour Appeal Court.
Judgment
The Labour Appeal Court dismissed the appeal. It held that the gathering constituted an unauthorised meeting under the employer's disciplinary code, that the instruction to return to work or leave the premises was lawful and reasonable, and that the prolonged refusal amounted to gross insubordination. The Court rejected technical challenges to the framing of the charges and confirmed that dismissal was an appropriate sanction given the seriousness and persistence of the misconduct.
Key Takeaways for Employers
Employers are entitled to enforce discipline where employees refuse lawful instructions or participate in unauthorised workplace gatherings. Persistent and collective insubordination may justify dismissal, particularly in sensitive operational contexts. Disciplinary charges will be assessed substantively rather than through an overly formalistic lens.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
