Author: Nicky Hardwick
A Labour Court decision in May 2025 has served a sobering reminder to employers: acting rashly in response to internal conflict can have serious consequences. Medici Energy found this out the hard way after terminating an employee’s remote work arrangement – and ultimately her employment – shortly after she tried to lodge a grievance against two of her managers.
While the company claimed it was within its rights to recall the employee to the office, the court found otherwise. There was no operational justification for ending the work-from-home arrangement, and the instruction to return to the office came just one day after her follow-up on her grievance.
The sequence of events was enough for the CCMA, and later the Labour Court, to conclude that the decision was retaliatory.
Where Medici Energy went wrong
- No operational reason for the return
The company could not prove that the instruction to return to the office was based on business need. In fact, the employee had been working remotely effectively, and nothing had changed operationally to require her presence at the office. - Suspicious timing and retaliatory motive
The court found that the instruction followed too closely on the heels of the employee’s attempt to raise a grievance. This timing, combined with the lack of justification, created a clear perception of retaliation. - Predetermined outcome
Internal emails revealed that the company had already decided to terminate the employee’s contract before any proper disciplinary process had taken place, effectively rendering the process meaningless. - No consideration of circumstances
There was no attempt to engage the employee about her remote work setup, or to consider her personal circumstances before recalling her.
The cost of a rash decision
The Labour Court upheld the CCMA’s ruling and awarded the employee eight months’ salary in compensation, citing both procedural and substantive unfairness. That’s a heavy price for what ultimately appears to have been a poorly thought-out, emotionally charged reaction to an employee asserting her rights.
The bigger lesson for employers
This wasn’t about remote work – it was about motive and method. The company’s failure wasn’t in ending a work-from-home arrangement, it was in doing so without a clear reason or following a fair process, immediately after the employee tried to hold management accountable. In HR, we often see leaders make reactive decisions, sometimes out of frustration, sometimes out of ego. But when conflict arises, acting without thought or fairness will come back to bite you.
Think, then act
As employers, we must remember that people management is not about power or control, it’s about reason, accountability, and balance.
When someone raises a grievance, take a breath. When you feel like “teaching someone a lesson” take a step back. And if you’re unsure how to proceed, get advice before you act. Because as this case shows: rash decisions aren’t just risky – they’re expensive too.
For any HR-related questions or guidance, contact us today.