Angry employers too often fire errant employees in anger. However, there is no place for anger in the implementation of discipline. This is because the resultant hasty action is likely to trip the employer up at the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA). This risk is central when firing employees in anger.
A case in point is that of Marcel Pharmacy (Pty) Ltd vs Justine Afrika (SAFLII 11 March 2026, Labour Court case NO: C337/2023). Here, the employee switched off the lights of the pharmacy where she worked. She did this to cool the shop down. Her boss later reprimanded her in anger. He also instructed Afrika to write a statement. The statement had to confirm that she had switched the lights off.
Later, the employer again told her to write the statement. Alternatively, he told her to leave. Afrika then left the workplace. She referred an unfair dismissal dispute to the CCMA.
Assessment of dismissal and procedural fairness
The arbitrator found that Afrika’s dismissal had been unfair. At the Labour Court, the employer argued that it had not dismissed the employee. Instead, it claimed that it had only told her to leave. This situation reflects the risks of firing employees in anger.
The court found that Afrika had not received an explicit dismissal. However, the Court also found that she had not been told she was suspended. In addition, no one contacted Afrika when she failed to report for duty on Monday. This absence of follow-up strengthened her version of events.
Furthermore, the employer fired the employee without giving her an opportunity to defend herself. This failure undermined procedural fairness. The court therefore upheld the arbitrator’s compensation award. The award amounted to five months’ remuneration.
Emotional decision-making and CCMA risk exposure
The employer had justification for his anger. He reacted after discovering that the lights had been switched off in his business. He also reacted to Afrika’s refusal to comply with his instruction to write a statement. However, the case illustrates a critical principle. Employers who act while firing employees in anger often undermine their own disciplinary processes.
If the employer had paused before acting, he would have handled the matter differently. He would also have been able to discipline the employee lawfully and effectively. This outcome highlights how firing employees in anger can weaken an employer’s legal position.
The financial consequences of the employer’s reaction were significant. His emotional response created avoidable legal risk. This case demonstrates that firing employees in anger often leads to procedural errors. It also increases exposure at the CCMA.
Employers must ensure that managers receive proper training. Such training must focus on rational disciplinary processes and legal compliance. Without this discipline, firing employees in anger becomes a recurring source of unfair dismissal findings.
Ivan Israelstam | Chief Executive | Labour Law Management Consulting | mail me |
