The power of language: When a slip of the tongue becomes a dismissal

The recent Labour Court judgment in GIWUSA obo Siyabonga Lungelobuthelezi v AEL Mining Services offers a sobering reminder of the importance of respectful conduct in the workplace, especially in public forums.

Background and findings

Mr Buthelezi, an operator with over a decade of service, was dismissed after using vulgar language during a workplace safety meeting. The incident occurred during a session, facilitated by a Safety, Health, Environment and Quality practitioner. The meeting, intended to promote safety awareness, was disrupted when Mr Buthelezi allegedly directed offensive language at the facilitator in front of colleagues and contractors.

Although the arbitrator found the dismissal procedurally unfair due to the denial of representation by a shop steward of his choice, the substantive fairness of the dismissal was upheld.

The Labour Court agreed, finding that the arbitrator’s conclusions were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

Legal implications

Substantive vs procedural fairness

The court upheld the substantive fairness of the dismissal, confirming that using vulgar language in a professional setting, especially when directed at a colleague, can justify termination.

However, the dismissal was found to be procedurally unfair because the employee was denied representation by a shop steward of his choice. This resulted in a compensation award, reinforcing the principle that procedural defects can lead to remedies even if the dismissal itself is justified.

Contextual assessment of misconduct

The judgment highlights that context matters. Vulgar language used in a formal safety meeting, directed at a facilitator, was deemed serious enough to warrant dismissal.

The court emphasised that misconduct must be evaluated not just by the words used, but by how, when, and to whom they were said.

Remorse and mitigation

The employee’s failure to apologise or show genuine remorse weakened his case. The court clarified that acknowledging wrongdoing is not the same as expressing remorse, and this distinction can influence the fairness of a sanction.

Employers are not required to prove a breakdown in trust in every case – serious misconduct can justify dismissal on its own, especially when it undermines workplace harmony or authority.

Importance of clear workplace policies

Although the employee argued that no code of conduct was presented, the court found the misconduct serious enough to infer its gravity. Still, the case underscores the importance for employers to clearly communicate behavioural expectations and disciplinary consequences.

Key takeaways

• Context matters: the use of vulgar language in a formal setting, especially when directed at a colleague, can be grounds for dismissal, even without prior warnings.
• Remorse is more than words: acknowledging inappropriate behaviour is not enough. Genuine remorse and a direct apology are critical in disciplinary matters.
• Procedural fairness is essential: employers must ensure that disciplinary processes allow for proper representation.
• Trust and respect are foundational: the judgment reinforces that disrespectful conduct, particularly in public or professional settings, can irreparably damage working relationships.

For employers

Ensure that disciplinary policies are clear, consistently applied, and that employees are given fair representation. Lead with professionalism and document incidents thoroughly.

For employees

Maintain respectful communication, especially in meetings or when raising concerns. Understand that how you say something can be just as important as what you say.

Final thoughts

The judgment is a clear signal to both employers and employees: workplace conduct matters, and words spoken in frustration can carry serious consequences. While the court acknowledged procedural flaws in the dismissal process, it ultimately upheld the decision to terminate employment, considering the gravity of the misconduct.

For employers, this case reinforces the importance of fair procedures and clear behavioural standards. For employees, it is a reminder that professionalism must be maintained, even in moments of disagreement or tension. Respectful communication is not just a workplace expectation; it is a legal necessity.

In a labour environment where trust and dignity are paramount, this judgment draws a firm line between assertiveness and disrespect. It is a lesson in accountability, and a call to uphold the values that make workplaces safe, inclusive, and productive.

This case is a reminder that workplace respect is not just a courtesy; it is a cornerstone of professional conduct and legal compliance.

For advice or more information, please contact Riona Kalua, head of our Labour and Employment team.