Sonja Vorster
Employers have developed procedures and in some cases job descriptions in order to allocate certain tasks to certain positions in order to promote efficiencies and to ensure accountability from employees. To what extent does this impact on an employee’s refusal to perform certain tasks, which he or she believes falls outside the scope of their job description?
It is the duty and basic principle of employment law that employees have a duty of good faith towards their employer. The duty of good faith is a general duty and includes a wide comprehensive range of various aspects, including the duty of employees to act in a subordinate manner and comply with the directions and instructions of the employer in regard to their daily duties and work.
An interesting matter set the guidelines:
“In Noosi v Exxaro Matla Coal & Others, the Labour Court had the opportunity to deal with the issue of insubordination and confirm an important principle in regard thereto. The case involved an electrician who had refused to obey the instructions of the Senior Foreman who had instructed him to stop the operation of a conveyor belt, which was operating in dangerous conditions.
The employee was subsequently charged with, inter alia, gross insubordination and dismissed. He referred a dispute to the CCMA where the Commissioner found his dismissal to be fair.”
The employee then took the matter on review where the Labour Court found that the test for insubordination is not whether the instructions fall within the job description of the employee, but rather whether the instructions were reasonable and lawful.
In particular, the Court aligned itself with the sentiments expressed in Exxaro Coal Mpumalanga Ltd v CCMA & Others where the Court held as follows:- “…Should it be shown that the instruction was unlawful, it would be the end of the inquiry.
If it is found that the instruction was lawful, the expectation is that the employee to whom such instruction was issued should have complied. It will have little, if any, to do with whether the instruction related to the employee’s job description because it will never be a justification for an employee to refuse lawful instructions merely because the instructions are not his or her direct functions.”
In any event, the evidence showed that the instruction did fall within the employee’s job description and the employee’s dismissal was found to be fair.
Employers should regularly revisit job descriptions to ensure that the day-to-day responsibilities of employees are contained therein. Nevertheless, as shown by this judgment, employees still have an overriding duty of good faith to their employers, whether the instruction falls.
