The Cost of Insubordination

Zinta Strydom
Apr 27
3 min read

A brief breakdown of the ruling made in the matter of RAM Transport (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd v Mkhize and Others (D391/2021) [2026] ZALCD 13: a stern warning to insubordination.

The management of ships and other commercial enterprises, such as the RAM Transport (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd (the ‘’Applicant), are not too dissimilar. The operational functionality of either is dependent on the seamless compliance and action of various instructions issued by the authoritative captain and/or manager. Each lawful instruction operates as a line that secures the vessel’s cargo and crew against possibly capsizing.

‘’It is the steady accumulation of acts of defiance against lawful instruction and insubordination by the crew, that compromise the sanctity of a vessel, and similarly so, that of a commercial enterprise.’’

The Applicant in RAM Transport (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd v Mkhize and Others,^[1] dismissed the Third Respondent for disobeying a lawful instruction that was issued in line with standard operating procedures. This editorial examines the courts rationale, guides employers on the elements of lawful issuance of instructions and further highlights the costly consequence of disobedience thereof by employees.

Factual Matrix

On 22 May 2019, the Applicant issued an instruction to the Third Respondent - then employed as a crew member and assistant driver - to facilitate a delivery for a client of the Applicant that had not been delivered earlier that day. The Third Respondent verbally refused, indicating that at the time of receipt of the instruction, it was ‘’late’’ at night to execute it. ^[2] The Applicant further offered to provide an escort to the Third Respondent (thus ensuring that the delivery is executed promptly), to which the Third Respondent declined and persisted in disobeying the instruction.^[3]

The ensuing arbitration proceedings confirmed that the instruction to complete the delivery was indeed lawful and aligned with the Standard Operating Procedures and, as such, that the refusal to follow a reasonable and lawful instruction attributed to a breakdown in the employment relationship between the parties.^[5] Ultimately, the Third Respondent was promptly dismissed, with the Applicant citing gross negligence (or alternatively, failure to follow the standard operating delivery procedure) and bringing the company’s name into disrepute by compromising the trust relationship and client service agreement.^[6]

The Second Respondent (appointed to determine whether the dismissal of the Applicant was procedurally and substantively fair) deemed the dismissal too harsh a sanction in the circumstances, ultimately contending that corrective and progressive discipline would have had the desired effect of modifying the Applicant’s behaviour in the workplace.^[7] In line with this reasoning, the Second Respondent further awarded 5 months’ worth of compensation to the Third Respondent, prompting the Applicant to take the matter under review before the Labour Court.

Labour Court’s Analysis

The Labour Court’s decision in this instance primarily focused on the internal contradiction between the Second Respondent’s acceptance of the misconduct, and misdirection on the alternative sanction imposed. In addition to the aggravating factors that informed the Applicant’s decision to dismiss (which the Second Respondent accepted), the Labour Court found that the Second Respondent’s referral of a corrective and progressive disciplinary action to be at odds with the Second Respondent’s determination that the Third Respondent was not a suitable candidate for such an action. What is rejected in principle cannot then be applied in outcome.

More importantly, the Labour Court noted that it is the Code of Good Practice: Dismissal (Schedule 8 to the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995), that sets the standard, whilst the employer’s disciplinary code gives it force.

’Read together, they necessitate only one outcome: where an employee willfully defies a lawful instruction central to the employer’s service obligations and in doing so, undermines both trust and client commitments, dismissal is not excessive but entirely appropriate.’’

Consequently, the Labour Court found the dismissal to be substantively fair.

Requirements of an Employer’s Instruction

This decision made by the Labour Court emphasizes that employees’ instructions must be lawful, reasonable and fall within the scope of the employees’ duties. Moreover, instructions of this nature must be rooted in consistently applied workplace rules that the employee ought to be aware of, as evidenced by the Standard Operating Deliver Procedure applicable in this matter. Therefore, refusal of an instruction issued in accordance with these requirements amounts to a breach of the employee’s obligations.

At ZS Attorneys Inc, we assist organisations charting the course of establishing bespoke lawful and substantially reasonable compliance frameworks and guiding employers through the turbulence of workplace disputes to facilitate effective resolutions. All to ensure that your enterprise is not merely set adrift but is capable of sailing with certainty.

For more information, please contact Zinta Strydom, Managing Director.