Labour Appeal Court Overturns Woolworths Dismissal: Calling Colleagues ‘Dumb’ Warranted a Warning, Not a Firing

The Labour Appeal Court reinstated a 28-year employee, and found that the commissioner had failed to properly test whether dismissal was an appropriate sanction

DURBAN – The Labour Appeal Court has set aside the dismissal of a long-serving Woolworths supervisor who was fired for calling till operators ‘dumb’, ruling that dismissal was too harsh a sanction and ordering her reinstatement with a final written warning instead. The judgment, handed down on 1 June 2026 in Arunachellam v Woolworths (Pty) Ltd (Case No: DA27/2024), is a pointed reminder to employers and arbitrators alike that a finding of guilt is only half the fairness enquiry – the appropriateness of the sanction must always be considered.

Gladys Arunachellam, a supervisor at Woolworths’ La Lucia Mall store in Durban with 28 years’ unblemished service, was dismissed in May 2019 after allegedly describing till operators as ‘dumb’ in front of two trainees and another staff member. She maintained she had used the word ‘confused’. A CCMA commissioner found she had indeed said ‘dumb’ and upheld her dismissal – but expressly recorded that he had not been asked to decide whether dismissal itself was the right sanction. The Labour Court later found the dismissal substantively fair but procedurally unfair, awarding compensation. Both sides appealed the decision of the Labour Court.

A sanction the commissioner never actually decided

Writing for a unanimous court, Moshoana AJA (Mahalelo ADJP and Van Niekerk JA concurring) held that the commissioner had committed a gross irregularity by never determining whether dismissal was an appropriate sanction, mistakenly believing the point had not been raised. The Court confirmed that once an employee refers an unfair dismissal dispute to arbitration, the commissioner is automatically obliged to assess both legs of substantive fairness – guilt, and appropriateness of sanction – without needing to be expressly asked to do the latter.

“A commissioner would be relieved of that duty if an employee unequivocally accepts that the sanction of dismissal imposed by an employer is appropriate for the misconduct involved. This rarely occurs,” the Court noted, adding that the failure had “a distorting effect” on the outcome reached.

Reinstatement, not remittal

Rather than send the matter back to the CCMA – which would have added further delay to a dispute already six years old – the Court determined the appropriate sanction itself. Weighing the employee’s 28 years’ unblemished service, the absence of any racial element to the remark, the fact that the employees described were not even present when it was made, and Woolworths’ own disciplinary code providing for progressive discipline for this category of offence, the Court found dismissal was substantively unfair. It ordered Woolworths to reinstate the employee from her original dismissal date and to issue her with a final written warning valid for twelve months.

On Woolworths’ cross-appeal, the Court also found the dismissal had in fact been procedurally fair – the fifteen minutes the employee was given to prepare her response was reasonable, and the Labour Court had erred in awarding her compensation for procedural unfairness. No order was made as to costs.

What this means for employers and employees

• Challenging an unfair dismissal automatically puts the appropriateness of the sanction in issue – employees do not need to raise it separately, and commissioners cannot sidestep it.

• Where an employer’s own disciplinary code provides for progressive discipline for an offence category, dismissing on a first offence is vulnerable to challenge – consistency with your own code matters.

• Long, unblemished service remains a significant mitigating factor against dismissal, even where the underlying misconduct is not disputed.

• Arbitration awards should be reasoned, not verbatim transcripts – the Court was critical of the commissioner’s 52-page award for reproducing evidence at length instead of giving brief reasons, as section 138(7)(a) of the LRA requires.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance on protected disclosures, employment practices, or compliance obligations, consult a qualified labour law practitioner.

© 2026 Global Business Solutions (GBS). All rights reserved.

If you’re looking for a practical way to build AI capability this year, the AI Compass Capacitation Programme offers a structured 6-month learning journey for professionals across business functions. Running from July 2026 to January 2027, the programme covers AI foundations, prompting, practical AI tools, Microsoft Copilot, process thinking, automation, bot building, and AI law and governance, with a strong focus on real-world application. Learn more about Intake 2 and how to register here.

View our upcoming events: Upcoming Events and Qualifications, like AI Compass Intake 2, Disciplinary Enquiry & Arbitration Master Class (Live: PE/Gq, CT & Virtual), Parental Leave After van Wyk (Pop-Up) and EE Reporting 2026: The Year Targets are Tested.

*All workshops are offered as customised in-house training that can be presented virtually or on-site.