The Labour Court in Cape Town has firmly upheld the dismissal of a Santam Limited employee in a ruling that reinforces employer authority regarding workplace COVID-19 policies and employee misconduct. The court confirmed that an employee’s financial inability to afford PCR tests, after refusing a vaccine on unsubstantiated religious grounds, does not constitute workplace incapacity.
Aurelia Somora Richards, who had been employed as a service consultant at Santam since May 2014, was dismissed in August 2022. Her dismissal followed a series of unauthorised absences and her refusal to comply with the company’s return-to-office protocols. During the pandemic, Santam required office-bound employees to return permanently by 1 March 2022. The company’s policy mandated that employees must either be vaccinated or submit regular negative PCR tests.
Ms Richards refused the COVID-19 vaccine. Is so doing, she cited her Christian beliefs, though the court noted she failed to provide convincing evidence that her religion actually forbade vaccination. Having opted to take PCR tests instead, she complied during March and early April 2022. However, she stopped submitting tests in mid-April, which resulted in a written warning. She ceased again in June 2022, which led to a final written warning and her eventual disciplinary hearing. Ms Richards argued she could no longer afford the R150 cost per test and asserted that this financial constraint effectively incapacitated her from complying with the policy.
The court rejected this defence and agreed with the CCMA commissioner that the matter was one of misconduct, not incapacity. The court emphasised that Ms Richards’ inability to pay for the tests did not amount to a disability as defined in employment law. By choosing not to vaccinate without a valid constitutional or medical exemption, Ms Richards had to bear the financial consequences of her choice. The judge poignantly noted that “freedom of choice is not freedom from consequence”.
Furthermore, Ms Richards faced a charge of dishonesty. When she escalated her unfair dismissal dispute to the CCMA, she made sweeping, baseless allegations against Santam. She accused the company of favouritism, racial discrimination, and abusive workplace practices. Because she could not substantiate any of these claims during the arbitration, the court deduced they were fabricated solely to manipulate the outcome of her case. The court found this lack of integrity destroyed the trust relationship between employer and employee.
The court concluded that Ms Richards’ wilful and persistent failure to report for duty was a serious challenge to her employer’s authority and thus qualified as gross insubordination. The review application was dismissed.
You can read the details of the Richards review application here.
Written by Theo Tembo
Read more from The Legal Desk:
The Legal Desk 
Leave a comment