Drivers refusing reasonable alternative duties
In one matter, a former client employed approximately 20 drivers whose duties were divided into two operational teams: local deliveries within Gauteng and long-distance cross-country deliveries.
Due to increasing operational challenges, including vehicle breakdowns, hijackings, and logistical inefficiencies, the business began utilising third-party transport providers for certain delivery functions.
As a result, many of the drivers experienced prolonged periods of inactivity, sometimes remaining idle for days at a time.
To improve productivity and operational efficiency, the employer instructed the drivers to assist in the warehouse with duties such as packing, unpacking, and shelving stock during periods when no driving work was available.
The drivers refused, taking the position that warehouse duties fell outside the scope of their role and were beneath their designated positions as drivers.
Multiple discussions were held with the union to address the dispute. Management explained that the drivers were not entitled to refuse the instruction, particularly as their contracts of employment contained clauses allowing the employer, from time to time, to assign reasonable alternative duties based on operational requirements.
Even aside from the contractual clause, the instruction itself was lawful and reasonable.
Negotiations with the union ultimately reached a deadlock. In an effort to accommodate the employees and ensure fairness, the company offered to formally onboard and train the drivers in warehouse procedures. Only two drivers agreed to participate in the training, while the remainder refused.
The drivers were given a clear deadline by which they were required to report to the warehouse and commence the assigned duties. They ignored the instruction.
An ultimatum was then issued, warning the employees that continued refusal could amount to unprotected industrial action and serious misconduct. The first ultimatum was ignored. A second ultimatum was issued and again ignored. A final ultimatum followed, with each warning delivered approximately 15 minutes apart and properly recorded.
Despite multiple opportunities to comply, the drivers remained defiant.
All non-compliant employees were suspended, issued notices to attend disciplinary hearings, and were subsequently dismissed.
The employees referred an unfair dismissal dispute to the Dispute Resolution Centre of the Motor Industry Bargaining Council, challenging both the procedural and substantive fairness of their dismissals.
After considering the evidence, the DRC upheld the dismissals and found in favour of the employer.
Why we succeeded
- The instruction was lawful and reasonable — Employers are entitled to allocate alternative duties where operational requirements justify it, provided those duties are reasonable.
- The employment contracts supported management's position — The contracts expressly allowed for the allocation of additional duties from time to time.
- Operational necessity was clear — The drivers were being paid despite extended periods of inactivity, while warehouse operations required additional manpower.
- The employer acted progressively and fairly — Multiple consultations, training opportunities, deadlines, and three separate ultimatums were provided before dismissal.
- The conduct amounted to collective defiance — The repeated refusal to obey a lawful instruction constituted serious insubordination and, in context, bordered on unprotected industrial action.