Whatshot
Workplace Violence: When Dismissal Is Justified
Workplace Violence: When Dismissal Is Justified
Date: 2026-08-28
The Labour Court was recently called upon to consider whether an employee's dismissal following a physical fight with a co-worker was fair. The employee, who worked as a general worker, was involved in an argument with a colleague, Mr Wonder Mpya, on 8 December 2021. What started as a verbal confrontation at work later escalated into a physical fight after the employees had knocked off.
The employee was charged with gross misconduct. It was alleged that he had started the physical fight, assaulted Mpya and had also threatened and insulted him at work. Following a disciplinary enquiry, he was found guilty and dismissed. The employee disputed the dismissal and referred the matter to arbitration. His version of events was very different. He maintained that Mpya was the aggressor and that he had merely defended himself. He alleged that Mpya had grabbed him, stabbed him with a knife or razor and had thrown stones at him. He also said that he had sustained an injury to his hand during the incident. The Commissioner, however, preferred the employer's version.
Three witnesses gave evidence on behalf of the employer. Mpya described how the employee had approached him after work, grabbed him by his shirt and started punching him. Mr Moleleki, who was walking with Mpya at the time, substantially supported this version. The supervisor, Mr Mkandawira, also gave evidence about the earlier argument between the two employees at work. There was another factor which counted against the employee. Mpya reported the incident to the employer the following day. The employee, on the other hand, did not report that he had allegedly been assaulted by Mpya. The employee subsequently took the arbitration award on review to the Labour Court, arguing that the Commissioner had ignored important evidence and had failed to take proper account of his claim that he had acted in self-defence. The Court was not persuaded.
One of the employee's arguments was that medical reports showed that he had been injured during the fight. The difficulty, however, was that although the medical reports appeared in the arbitration bundle, the employee had never properly introduced them into evidence or relied on them during the arbitration. The Court therefore found that they could not simply be relied upon as proof of his version.
His allegation that Mpya had obtained a knife from Moleleki was also found to be speculative. There was no evidence that the two had planned the attack or that Moleleki had supplied Mpya with a weapon.The Court ultimately found that the Commissioner had considered the evidence before him and had reached a conclusion that a reasonable decision-maker could reach.
Importantly, the Court reminded us that a review is not an appeal. The question is not whether the Court itself would have come to a different conclusion. The issue is whether the Commissioner's decision fell outside the range of decisions that a reasonable decision-maker could make. In this case, it did not. The review application was dismissed, and the employee's dismissal remained in place.
The case is a useful reminder that an allegation of self-defence must be supported by credible evidence. It also highlights an often-overlooked point in arbitration proceedings: documents placed in a bundle do not automatically become evidence. They must properly be introduced and relied upon.
For employers, the case also illustrates the importance of having witnesses who can corroborate the material aspects of an incident and who can give a consistent account from the disciplinary hearing through to arbitration. In the end, the employee's version simply did not outweigh the evidence presented by the employer.
The Law Desk of Fawzia Khan & Associates. Giving YOU the Power of Attorney. Email us at fawzia@thelawdesk.co.za or call 031-5025670 for legal assistance at competitive rates.