A former employee at a leading technology provider, who claimed she was forced to resign because of unbearable working conditions, has lost her bid to overturn an earlier ruling made by the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA).
The Western Cape Labour Court found there was not enough evidence to prove that her workplace had become so intolerable that she had no option but to quit.
According to the woman’s submissions, she resigned “in a desperate attempt to be allowed to return to work”.
Instead, the court found that her premature resignation was “fatal” to her case.
The employee, who was a technical general manager, sought to have the court overturn the decision that rejected her constructive dismissal claim, in which she argued she was forced to resign because of the working conditions.
She argued that she had effectively been forced out of her job, that this was unfair, and that she should receive compensation.
She did not seek to be reinstated as she had already reached retirement age.
At the CCMA, the commissioner found that although the employee felt strongly that her continued employment was intolerable, an objective test had to be applied to determine whether this was the case.
In applying that test, the commissioner did not, on a balance of probabilities, find that she was ill-treated, harassed, or humiliated, or that she was prevented from fulfilling her job. The commissioner found that the employee was not constructively dismissed, and therefore the CCMA lacked jurisdiction to arbitrate the dispute.
The Labour Court found that the employee did not provide enough evidence to make out her case.
The employee, who suffers from depression and did not dispute that she had, on about 10 occasions, had loud outbursts at her workplace towards other employees, testified that after a new managing director was appointed at her place of employment, “(the managing director) took a dislike to her because she challenged his thinking and strategy”.
Court records detail: “With reference to (the employee’s) pleaded case, (the employer) submits that she resigned ‘in a desperate attempt to get (the employer) to allow her to return to work’, which undermines the argument that non-compliance with the settlement agreement rendered continued employment intolerable.
“The submission is that if she had no work and found her duties unfulfilling, she would not have resigned in a desperate attempt to return to work. (The employer) also takes issue with (the employee) working out her notice period, despite alleging that the working relationship was intolerable.”
According to court details, after the woman arrived for work on July 1, 2022, she was “described as visibly shaking and very emotional”.
Despite a physician’s letter which rendered her fit for work, she was instructed by an acting HR manager at the time to return to work the following day. Meanwhile, the employer arranged for the employee to consult with a psychologist through a health and wellness scheme.
The psychologist advised that a medical report would be made available two days after the consultation, which took place on July 13, 2022.
The acting HR manager advised the woman that upon receipt of the psychologist’s report, a meeting would be held with her to discuss “the way forward”.
However, in the absence of the report, on July 15, 2022, the employee submitted her 30-day notice of resignation.
Judge Tapiwa Gandize said: “In the court’s view, resigning before the psychologist’s report was available was fatal to (her) case that continued employment had become intolerable. The report was available on July 18, 2022, and recorded that she wanted to work, but that an occupational therapist was best placed to determine her fitness to work.
“It is unknown what (the employer) would have done upon receipt of the report had (she) not resigned in the meantime. It is also unknown whether she would have been allowed to return to work. (Her) contention that she had no reason to believe (her employer) would change its decision to keep her at home, regardless of the psychologist’s report, was speculative and unreasonable.”
Chevon Booysen
iol.co.za