LRM3702
ASSIGNMENT 6 SEMESTER 2 2024
UNIQUE NO.
DUE DATE: 4 NOVEMBER 2024
, QUESTION 1:
1.1 Legality of Joe and Frank’s Refusal to Use the Computers and the Fairness of
Their Dismissals
Under the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (LRA), insubordination refers to the refusal
by an employee to obey a reasonable and lawful instruction from an employer. Joe and
Frank’s refusal to use the computers constitutes insubordination, as their employer’s
instruction to use the technology was reasonable given the company’s operational
needs. Their refusal also involved a wilful defiance of the instruction, leading to the
disciplinary action taken against them.
While the initial oral and written warnings given to Joe and Frank were consistent with a
progressive disciplinary approach, their continued refusal ultimately led to their
dismissal. For a dismissal to be deemed fair, it must meet the following criteria under
the LRA:
The reason for dismissal must be fair, related to the employee's conduct,
capacity, or operational requirements.
The procedure followed must be in line with fair processes, providing employees
with a fair hearing.
In this case, the company followed the necessary procedural steps, including issuing
warnings and holding a disciplinary inquiry. The fairness of their dismissal rests on
whether the company exhausted all alternative measures and whether the refusal was
justified by the workers’ claim for regrading. The company may have acted harshly, as
the underlying grievance about job grading was not addressed adequately, but the
refusal to obey lawful instructions made their dismissal legally defensible.
ASSIGNMENT 6 SEMESTER 2 2024
UNIQUE NO.
DUE DATE: 4 NOVEMBER 2024
, QUESTION 1:
1.1 Legality of Joe and Frank’s Refusal to Use the Computers and the Fairness of
Their Dismissals
Under the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (LRA), insubordination refers to the refusal
by an employee to obey a reasonable and lawful instruction from an employer. Joe and
Frank’s refusal to use the computers constitutes insubordination, as their employer’s
instruction to use the technology was reasonable given the company’s operational
needs. Their refusal also involved a wilful defiance of the instruction, leading to the
disciplinary action taken against them.
While the initial oral and written warnings given to Joe and Frank were consistent with a
progressive disciplinary approach, their continued refusal ultimately led to their
dismissal. For a dismissal to be deemed fair, it must meet the following criteria under
the LRA:
The reason for dismissal must be fair, related to the employee's conduct,
capacity, or operational requirements.
The procedure followed must be in line with fair processes, providing employees
with a fair hearing.
In this case, the company followed the necessary procedural steps, including issuing
warnings and holding a disciplinary inquiry. The fairness of their dismissal rests on
whether the company exhausted all alternative measures and whether the refusal was
justified by the workers’ claim for regrading. The company may have acted harshly, as
the underlying grievance about job grading was not addressed adequately, but the
refusal to obey lawful instructions made their dismissal legally defensible.
