Limpopo lecturer’s suspension without pay upheld by Labour Court after refusal to teach
The Labour Court in Johannesburg has dismissed an application by University of Limpopo lecturer to overturn an arbitration ruling that upheld his suspension without pay, finding that his conduct in refusing to carry out teaching duties was unjustified and harmful to students.
Acting Judge Ndivhuho Tshisevhe ruled that the decision of the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) commissioner was reasonable and did not warrant interference by the court.
This is after Phindile Raymond Msaule approached the court seeking to review and set aside an arbitration award issued in February 2022. The arbitrator had found that the University of Limpopo did not commit an unfair labour practice when it disciplined him for refusing to follow instructions and neglecting his duties.
The dispute stems from events in early 2021 when Msaule, a lecturer since 2013, was assigned to co-teach a criminal law module alongside his Head of Department (HOD), Professor SL Rapulana. The HOD indicated he would oversee the module due to concerns about poor student performance, while Msaule would remain the primary lecturer.
Unhappy with the arrangement, Msaule escalated the matter to senior management, including the school director and the dean, and requested to be removed from the module. However, his concerns were not upheld, and he subsequently refused to participate in teaching or assessment-related activities while awaiting a response to his grievance.
The university charged him with insubordination and neglect of duties. Following a disciplinary hearing, he was found guilty and initially suspended for two months without pay, a sanction later increased to three months along with a final written warning on appeal.
At arbitration, Msaule argued that he could not be disciplined because he had lodged a grievance regarding the module allocation. However, the arbitrator rejected this argument, finding that he had failed to follow the formal grievance procedure and that the instruction he defied was both lawful and reasonable.
In his review application, Msaule raised several grounds, including that the arbitrator mischaracterised the issues, ignored evidence, and wrongly concluded that he had not lodged a grievance. He also argued that he had been unfairly denied a postponement to call witnesses who could support his case.
The Labour Court, however, was not persuaded. Applying the well-established “reasonableness” test from constitutional jurisprudence, the court found that the arbitrator’s decision fell within the range of outcomes that a reasonable decision-maker could reach.
Judge Tshisevhe was particularly critical of Msaule’s conduct, describing it as unacceptable for a lecturer to abandon teaching responsibilities, especially given the impact on students. The court emphasised that even if a grievance had been properly lodged, Msaule was still obliged to continue performing his duties while the issue was being addressed.
“The employer cannot be expected to pay an employee who refuses to discharge his duties,” said the judge, adding that Msaule had failed to prove that the arbitration award was unreasonable.
The judgment further noted that Msaule had not meaningfully challenged all the charges against him, particularly the allegation that he neglected his duties over a period of three months.
In conclusion, the court dismissed the review application and upheld the arbitration award, finding no irregularity or misconduct by the commissioner.
On the issue of costs, the court exercised its discretion and made no order, noting that labour matters do not automatically follow the principle that costs should follow the result.
IOL News
