Introduction
One of our recent articles about dismissing an employee for irregular medical certificates referred to the case of Woolworths vs Maseko and Others (2024) when the Labour Appeal Court (LAC) overturned the dismissal of an employee for submitting a fraudulent medical certificate. The LAC found that if f an employee receives a sick note from a registered medical practice, they are generally entitled to assume its validity unless proven otherwise. The evidence pointed to possible misconduct by the doctor’s practice, not necessarily the employee.
Dealing with irregular or fraudulent medical certificates can be a complex challenge for employers, particularly when an employee claims they were unaware of any wrongdoing. The Woolworths and NUMSA obo Tlhone v Harmony Gold Mining Company Ltd (2025) cases provide valuable insights into how these matters should be handled.
Case Summaries
Woolworths v Maseko & Others (2024)
Ms. Lorraine Maseko, an employee at Woolworths, was dismissed after submitting medical certificates from Dr. Frempong, a doctor whose practice was under scrutiny for allegedly issuing fraudulent sick notes. Woolworths contended that Maseko knowingly submitted fraudulent certificates. However, the Labour Appeal Court found that there was no direct evidence linking Maseko to any wrongdoing. The court emphasized that employees are entitled to rely on medical certificates issued by registered practitioners unless there is clear evidence of deceit. Consequently, Maseko’s dismissal was deemed substantively unfair, and she was reinstated.
NUMSA obo Tlhone v Harmony Gold Mining Company Ltd (2025)
The employee, an engineering assistant, was dismissed for submitting a fraudulent sick note after a single day’s absence from work. She claimed she had visited a doctor and received flu medication and a sick note from the receptionist, believing it to be legitimate.
However, the employer identified irregularities in the certificate and contacted the doctor, who denied issuing it and confirmed it was not authentic. The company noted that the employee had previously submitted legitimate medical certificates and was aware of the company’s sick note policy.
During proceedings, the employee was found to be an unreliable witness, unable to recall key details of the alleged consultation.
The CCMA Commissioner held that the employee acted dishonestly and that her conduct breached the trust relationship with the employer. As a result, the dismissal was upheld as fair
Comparative Analysis
Evidence and Burden of Proof
Both cases deal with employee dishonesty involving medical certificates. In Tlhone, the employee submitted a fraudulent sick note and admitted to altering a medical certificate to extend her sick leave, while in Maseko, the employee denied knowledge of its falsity, claiming she believed it was legitimate.
The cases affirm that dishonesty relating to medical certificates is a serious offence. Whether the employee admits or denies wrongdoing, the key factor is whether the conduct undermines the trust essential to the employment relationship.
Both cases underscore the paramount importance of evidence in employment disputes. In the Harmony Gold case, the company conducted an investigation and obtained tangible evidence that the medical certificate was false. Similarly, in the Woolworths case, the absence of direct evidence implicating Maseko in any fraudulent activity resulted in the court siding with the employee.
Employer Responsibilities
The cases highlight the duty of employers to act fairly and consistently. Harmony Gold had a duty to verify the authenticity of the sick note submitted by Tlhone. Upon detecting irregularities, Harmony Gold responsibly contacted the issuing doctor to confirm the certificate’s validity, ensuring a fair and thorough investigation. Woolworths, on the other hand, was criticised for not conducting a thorough investigation and for relying on hearsay and assumptions rather than concrete evidence.
In summary, Harmony Gold exercised its employer responsibilities diligently by verifying facts, enforcing policies, and following due process before dismissing Tlhone.
Employee Rights
Employees are entitled to certain protections under the law. In both cases, the courts reinforced the notion that employees should not be penalised without just cause. Maseko’s reliance on a medical certificate from a registered doctor was deemed reasonable, and Tlhone was entitled to a fair disciplinary process, including being informed of the allegations against her and given an opportunity to respond and present her side of the story before any decision on dismissal was made.
Implications for Workplace Policies
These rulings serve as a cautionary tale for employers. Policies must be applied consistently, and disciplinary actions should be based on solid evidence. Employers are encouraged to ensure transparency and fairness in their dealings with employees to avoid legal pitfalls.
Conclusion
The NUMSA obo Tlhone v Harmony Gold Mining Company Ltd and Woolworths v Maseko & Others cases reinforce the principles of fairness, consistency, and the necessity of evidence in employment relations. Employers must be diligent in their policies and actions, ensuring that decisions are grounded in fact and that employees’ rights are respected. These cases serve as pivotal references in South African labor law, emphasizing the delicate balance between organizational policies and individual rights.
