Self-Isolation and Employees’ Sick Leave

By Sashin Naidoo

Attorney at Johanette Rheeder Inc


The rights and responsibilities of employers and employees alike are customarily embodied in the age old “control test” developed from an early stage in South African jurisprudence. Control and supervision of a particular person (the Employee) by another (the Employer), in various respects, has long been a defining characteristic of the common employer-employee relationship.

Arguably the most indicative determining factor of the employee-employer relationship is the right of the employer to typically have the employee at its back and call for the purposes of rendering the contractual services agreed to. Tied to this right, is the general right for an employer to request an employee to render the agreed services at his/her/its discretion with the employee being obliged to obey all reasonable and lawful commands, instructions and/or orders and conduct same in accordance with the manner prescribed by the employer.

As a fundamental right, and concomitant obligation, Employees must accordingly avail themselves to render the agreed upon service at the behest of the Employer.

However, our law seeks to protect an Employees’ fundamental human right to fair labour practices and has codified certain entitlements to ensure the fair treatment of labourers throughout the subsistence of the employment relationship. Some examples of protectable interests are an Employees right to a safe working environment, the regulation of working hours and the provision an allotted amount of time off.

With the obtrusion that is the current global pandemic, some of the protectable interests given to Employees under the law, and the application thereof, have come into sharp focus. The potential for a highly communicable and deadly virus which has rapidly spread, and wreaked havoc, throughout the world to have an impact on the health and safety of the country’s workforce, is not only apparent but obvious.

As a result of this one would naturally come to expect that where employees have contracted Covid-19, questions surrounding the safety of a workplace and employee benefits (namely sick leave) would begin to arise.

Section 8(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, 85 of 1993 provides that it is an Employers’ duty to ensure that he/she/it provides an Employee with a safe and hazard free working environment insofar as is reasonably practicable.

In dealing with the current threat of the global pandemic, the Government of the Republic of South Africa, as part of its response to the threat, has issued regulation in terms of the Disaster Management Act, 57 of 2002 which states that any person who has tested positive for Covid-19 or displays symptoms associated with Covid-19 must isolate for a period of at least 10 days from date of the positive result or the onset of symptoms.

In the workplace, what this translates to is the need for employees and employers alike to ensure that there is compliance within the workspace, in the interest of maintaining a healthy and safe environment for the collective.      

The Basic Conditions of Employment Act, 75 of 1997 further provides an Employee with a minimum amount of paid sick leave equal to the number of days an Employee would ordinarily work during six-weeks per sick leave cycle. This right seeks to protect both an economic interest of the Employee as well as the safety and health of the Employee.

In the recent judgment of Mehlala vs Cybersmart (Pty) Ltd [2021] 7 BALR 749 (CCMA), issues surrounding a Covid-19 positive employee and such employee’s sick leave benefit/right were considered.

In this case, the employee contracted Covid-19 and after testing positive, was booked off work for a period of 10 days. Before the Employee returned to work, she was informed that she would need to obtain a medical certificate which cleared her for duty and declared her fit to resume work.

At this stage she still displayed symptoms associated with the virus and had complained of a continued feeling of illness. The employee returned to her physician on the same day and requested a letter declaring her fit to return to work, however, she indicated to her physician that she was still ill. Her physician told her to complete a period of 14 days isolation, rather than 10 days. The physician further issued a letter to the Employee to this effect. Notably, the letter did not provide a date upon which the Employee was to return to work, but what the letter did state was that the Employee would be booked off for a period of 14 days.

Despite informing her employer of this new development and providing copies of the medical certificates booking her off, it was demanded that she return to work. The Health and Safety Officer informed her that there were identifiable inconsistencies between the two different medical certificates. The first prescribed an isolation period of 10 days and contained a set date for the employees return, whilst the second medical certificate only provided for a 14-day isolation period. The Employee had to therefore determine and calculate the date of her return herself.

The other issue the Employer further took issue with the fact that the second medical certificate was incorrectly dated and did not bear the signature of the employee’s physician. It was accordingly rejected, and the employee was instructed to return to work.

Section 23(2) of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act, 75 of 1997 states that proof of incapacity must be a medical certificate which is “issued and signed by a medical practitioner or any other person certified to diagnose and treat patients”. It would accordingly seem that the employer was entitled to reject the second medical certificate of the employee, in light of the issues.

Our Labour Appeal Court has further gone on to confirm, in the matter of Mgobhozi v Naidoo NO & others [2006] 3 BLLR 242 (LAC), that in addition to the above requirements regarding medical certificates, medical certificates without any supporting evidence may amount only to hearsay evidence of an employee’s incapacity.

This in light of the prevalent abuse of sick leave benefits afforded under our law by employees.

It is accordingly trite law that an Employer need not accept a sick note presented by an employee which is seemingly, on the face of it, irregular.  

The Employer therefore held the view that the additional leave taken by the Employee was unauthorised and upon her return issued a final written warning for unauthorised absence without leave when she failed to report to work after the prescribed, and accepted, period of 10 days. The Employee was further found guilty of insubordination for failing to return to work after being instructed to do so.

Interestingly the Employer, in this instance, sought to verify the Employee’s explanation for the ‘unauthorised’ absence before issuing the Employee with a final written warning. The employee’s manager, through communications with the Employee’s physician, confirmed that the irregularities complained of by the employer were clerical errors and the result of using templates to complete medical certificates. The physician further stated that he had been approached by the employee and corrected the relevant sick note to accurately reflect the correct medical advice.

In the CCMA case, the Commissioner found that, on the facts presented, not only did the employee have a legitimate reason for her absence, but under the current regulations and circumstances surrounding the Covid-19 pandemic, the employer’s demands, and instructions for the employee to return to work despite her continued ostensive symptoms, was illegal.

The Commissioner found that although the regulations refer to a period of 10 days, this is not cast in stone and may be extended in cases where a person still displays symptoms. The employee’s final written warning was accordingly declared unfair and set aside.

This matter serves as a cautionary tale against adopting a strict interpretation of the laws and regulations. Where an employee has offered a reasonable explanation for his/her absence, with sufficient proof to draw the rational conclusion that he/she is incapacitated.

Extra caution should be exercised in light of Covid -19, and employers are reminded that causing employees to be exposed to Covid-19 in the workplace may expose the employer to criminal liability.      

Sashin Naidoo (BA Law, LLB) is a Junior Attorney at Johanette Rheeder Incorporated.

You can download this newsletter as a PDF document, or send the link to a friend.
Download as PDF

Upcoming Events

Cross Examination Skills

Date: 20/01/2022 9:00:00 AM
Event Type: Distance Learning
Venue: Office / Home

Managing HR Challenges

Date: 24/01/2022 9:00:00 AM
Event Type: Distance Learning
Venue: Office / Home

Managing Workplace Discipline

Date: 28/01/2022 9:00:00 AM
Event Type: Distance Learning
Venue: Office / Home

Investigating & Charging in Disciplinary Hearings

Date: 31/01/2022 9:00:00 AM
Event Type: Distance Learning
Venue: Office / Home

Guide to Employment Equity

Date: 04/02/2022 9:00:00 AM
Event Type: Distance Learning
Venue: Office / Home

Initiating & Chairing Disciplinary Hearings

Date: 07/02/2022 9:00:00 AM
Event Type: Distance Learning
Venue: Office / Home

Optimising Negotiation Skills

Date: 11/02/2022 9:00:00 AM
Event Type: Distance Learning
Venue: Office / Home

Protection Of Personal Information Act

Date: 16/02/2022 9:00:00 AM
Event Type: Distance Learning
Venue: Office / Home

Organisational Rights & Collective Bargaining

Date: 18/02/2022 9:00:00 AM
Event Type: Distance Learning
Venue: Office / Home

Incapacity, Poor Performance & Ill-Health

Date: 21/02/2022 9:00:00 AM
Event Type: Distance Learning
Venue: Office / Home

Dealing With Workplace Grievances

Date: 28/02/2022 9:00:00 AM
Event Type: Distance Learning
Venue: Office / Home

CCMA - Conducting Conciliations & Arbitrations

Date: 03/03/2022 9:00:00 AM
Event Type: Distance Learning
Venue: Office / Home

Guide to Retrenchments

Date: 07/03/2022 9:00:00 AM
Event Type: Distance Learning
Venue: Office / Home

Guide to Employment Equity

Date: 11/03/2022 9:00:00 AM
Event Type: Distance Learning
Venue: Office / Home

Basic Labour Relations - LRA & BCEA

Date: 14/03/2022 9:00:00 AM
Event Type: Distance Learning
Venue: Office / Home

Protection Of Personal Information Act

Date: 16/03/2022 9:00:00 AM
Event Type: Distance Learning
Venue: Office / Home

See more...
Title Description Published By
August 2021
The Cybercrimes Act, Act 19 of 2020. Johanette Rheeder View
July 2021
THE CYBERCRIMES ACT, ACT 19 OF 2020. Johanette Rheeder View
June 2021
May 2021
COVID-19 VACCINE - An operational requirement - still a needle in a haystack? Gilles Van De Wall & Johanette Rheeder View
April 2021/2
Encapsulating The Apprehension Of Retirement & Severance Packages Lezanne Taylor View
April 2021/3
Guidance Note On Information Officers Information Regulator (South Africa) View
April 2021
The legal duty of a bank to protect non-customers from pure economic loss Ivor Heyman View
Mar 2021
The Simultaneity of Ubuntu & Law Lezanne Taylor View
Feb 2021/2
A Win for Privacy! Sashin Naaido View
Feb 2021
Overtime and compressed work weeks Gilles van de Wall View
Jan 2021
Differentiation of employment conditions Gilles van de Wall View
Dec 2020
Nov 2020
Can an attorney settle a dispute without the client’s consent? Ivor Heyyman View
Sep 2020
POPIA: The Second condition - Processing limitations Gilles van de Wall View
Aug 2020
‘I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul’ Gilles van de Wall View
Jul 2020
Disaster Management Regulations- 12 July 2020 Sashin Naaido View
Jun 2020
Advanced leave a possible solution to the payment of salaried employees Lezanne Taylor View
May 2020/2
May 2020/1
Apr 2020/2
COVID 19 – SMME Interventions Sashin Naaido View
Apr 2020/1
COVID-19 – Salary payments, relief payments and UIF claims during lockdown Johann Rheeder View
Mar 2020
Your obligations in a COVID-19 World State of Emergency! Gilles van de Wall View
Feb 2020
A tale of two judgments dealing with free speech and hate speech Ivor Heyman View
Jan 2020
The development of vicarious liability in Employment Law Alex Davies View
Dec 2019
The development of vicarious liability in employment law Alex Davies View
Nov 2019
Privacy implementation in South Africa – Quo vadis? Johanette Rheeder View
Oct 2019
Prescription of Labour law Wanya Cloete View
Sep 2019
Litigation Privilege: when and how can it be waived? Ivor Heyman View
Aug 2019
Refusal to accept a demand by an employer a legitimate operational requirements? Alex Davies View
July 2019
The Concept of Job Security & Fairness For Employees in Retrenchments Alex Davies View
June 2019
Can a union suspend a strike and take it up again? Johanette Rheeder View
May 2019
Social Media – Clash between Freedom of Expression & Privacy Ivor Heyman View
April 2019
Canabis in the workplace Wanya Cloete View
March 2019
GDPR/POPIA – Where Technology and Ethics have reached crossroads Megan Grindell View
February 2019
Strikes – certificates of outcome and matters of mutual interest – how far does it stretch? Johanette Rheeder View
Jan 2019
Regulations relating to the Protection of Personal Information Johanette Rheeder View
Dec 2018
Collection of debt from Employees Johanette Rheeder View
Nov 2018
Strikes – certificates of outcome and matters of mutual interest – how far does it stretch? Johanette Rheeder View
October 2018
The right to strike – A matter of mutual interest Johanette Rheeder View
July 2018
Extension of Collective Agreements Alex Davies View
June 2018
GDPR / POPIA – Where Technology & Ethics Have Reached a Crossroad Megan Grindell View
May 2018
Exemption Clauses: an assessment of the burden of proof Ivor Heyman View
April 2018
Companies that cannot afford the National Minimum Wage Department Of Labour View
March 2018
Portfolio Committee on Labour Extended Invitation for Commentary By SASLAW View
February 2018
Business Rescue Proceedings – A Brief Overview Alex Davies View
January 2018
Collection of debt from employees Alex Davies View
November 2017
Publication Of New Bills Which Impact Employment Alex Davies View
September 2017
POPI Regulations & the duties of the Information Officer Johanette Rheeder View
August 2017
Is a Break in the Trust Relationship, a prerequisite to Dismissal? Alex Davies View
July 2017
Temporary Employment Services - NUMSA vs Asign Services Alex Davies View
June 2017
Probation and probation related dismissals in the CCMA Johanette Rheeder View
May 2017
Job descriptions and extra duties required of an emplyee Johanette Rheeder View
March 2017
The extention of collective agreements in the workplace Alex Davies View
January 2017
The application of the prescription act to disputes under the labour relations act Alex Davies View
November 2016
Who can represent parties at CCMA proceedings? Yozan Botha View
September 2016
“Solidarity for Ever” Collective bargaining – rights and duties Johanette Rheeder View
July 2016
POPI Implementation on the horizon Johanette Rheeder View
May 2016
Applying the rule test in disciplinary hearing Johanette Rheeder View
April 2016
Does the managerial prerogative still apply during the recruitment process? Johanette Rheeder View
March 2016
The Stigmatising Effect of Medical Testing on Mental Illness Kellie Hennessy View
February 2016
Office Romance - A Lesson in managing personal relationships at work Kellie Hennessy View
January 2016
Rights for Males to Maternity Leave Benefits Kellie Hennessy View
December 2015
Interdicting Disciplinary Hearings Johanette Rheeder View
November 2015
The Right to Natural Justice in Disciplinary Hearings Xander Wehncke View
October 2015
The Protection of Personal Information Act No 4 of 2013 (“POPI”): Rethink the ‘architechture’ of your business Kellie Hennessy View
September 2015
Load Shedding in the Workplace: Negotiate Back the Power Kellie Hennessy View
July 2015
Retrenchment - Do We Recognise The Effect? Johanette Rheeder View
June 2015
The new CCMA rules - The ultimate relief? Johanette Rheeder View
May 2015
Medical Incapacity, Disability and Discrimination Kellie Hennessy View
April 2015
Breach of the trust relationship in employment: What to prove and how to prove it Xander Wehncke View
March 2015
The exposure of senior employees in terms of Labour Relations Amendment Act 2012 Johanette Rheeder View
February 2015
The Correct Approach to a Reviewable ‘Error in Law' Kellie Hennessy View
January 2015
E-Cigarettes and the Workplace Kellie Hennessy View