In Weir Minerals Africa (Pty) Ltd v NUMSA and Others (1 October 2025) (LC) the Labour Court recently set aside a reinstatement award issued by the Metal and Engineering Industries Bargaining Council (“MEIBC”) and found that the dismissals of two shop stewards employed by Weir Minerals Africa (Pty) Ltd (“the Company”) were substantively fair. The case hinged on a WhatsApp message sent by the employees to their members that the Court found was threatening, constituted gross misconduct, and irreparably broke the trust relationship.
The misconduct: the “Impimpi” message
The two employees, members of the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (“NUMSA”) were dismissed on 1 September 2020 after being found guilty of gross misconduct, specifically breaching their duty to act in good faith and/or failure to promote the interests of the Company.
The charge stemmed from a message sent on a WhatsApp group on 4 July 2020, which read, in part: “Comrade from Warehouse let’s stop mpimping please…“.
The message warned those who were “continually working hand in hand with supervisors to destroy other employees” and threatened that the shop stewards would “expose those individuals because it seems it is consistent“.
The Company argued the message was misleading and threatening, implying employees should not report acts of misconduct.
The Award and the arbitrator’s flawed reasoning
The employees referred the matter to the MEIBC, and the Commissioner found them guilty of breaching the rules. However, the Commissioner ultimately found the dismissals to be substantively unfair and ordered reinstatement without retrospective effect.
Crucially, the Commissioner’s reasoning rested on two factors. Firstly, the offer to apologise. The Commissioner placed significant weight on the fact that the employees were offered an opportunity to apologise, which she saw as an indication of prospects for continued employment and secondly, that the employees had clean disciplinary records.
Labour Court’s Review: The error of reliance
The Company sought to review and set aside the award. The Labour Court found the Commissioner’s decision was one that no reasonable decision-maker could reach.
The Court considered the word ‘Impimpi’ derived from isiNguni languages, to denote a spy or informer. The Court found the use of the term to be “patently threatening” due to its association with a “painful history” of severe retaliation. No employee should fear being labelled an ‘Impimpi’ for reporting wrongdoing.
The Court held that the employees’ actions and failure to appreciate their wrongdoing demonstrated a breach of the duty of good faith. An employee is obliged to act in good faith and protect the employer’s interests. The failure to do so, if it constitutes serious misconduct, renders a dismissal fair. The Court restated the principle that an employer is entitled, as an operational imperative, to rely on its employees to act in good faith and to protect its interests.
In addition, the Court held that the Commissioner had erred by attaching weight to an apology that never materialised. The Company had given the employees an opportunity to apologise for their conduct, but they did not take up this opportunity and there was no actual apology from them. The Court found that the Commissioner’s reliance on this offer to apologise, without the actual apology could not be used as a solution to dismissal or as evidence of a continued working relationship.
The Court also reiterated that a clean record alone cannot “shield unremorseful employees from the consequences of their gross misconduct“.
Conclusion
The Court reviewed and set aside the arbitration award and substituted that award with a finding that the employees’ dismissals were substantively fair. The employees’ cross-review, seeking retrospective reinstatement, was dismissed. The Judgment affirms that employees have a fundamental duty to act in good faith towards their employers and highlights the severity of threatening behaviour in the workplace, even under the guise of Union activity.
