Employers rely heavily on the presence at work of their employees in order to get he work done. It is therefore a major source of frustration for employers when workers are absent. Where such absence is repeated or takes place over a protracted period this frustration often turns into intense anger. This provokes the employer into wanting to get rid of the absent employee permanently so as to replace him or her with someone who will not be absent so often and who can, therefore, be relied on to be at work.
However, such employers are often caught in the following vicious circle:
In other words, the very offence of unauthorised absence is preventing the employer from disciplining the employee. In their resulting anger, frustration and confusion employers often act before checking what the law allows them to do.
As I mentioned in a recent article, employers are not entitled to work on the assumption that the employee has dismissed himself/herself. The courts have repeatedly said that, unless the employee clearly resigns, it cannot be determined that he/she has done so and, therefore, he/she has not terminated employment. This raises the question as to what constitutes resignation.
In my view resignation can be indicated in three ways:
However, in my view, the employee's failure to put the resignation in writing would not necessarily invalidate it if his/her actions made it clear that he/she was leaving.
However, employers should act with great caution in such circumstances.
In my view, this could constitute tacit resignation. Again, employers should act with great caution in such circumstances. Where employers fail to exercise caution in dealing with employees who "disappear" they usually end up on the losing end at the CCMA. For example, in the case of Siswana v Thomas Restorations (2007, 1 BAR 12) the employee disappeared for a month after informing the employer over the telephone that he was at home attending to family business.
The employer held a disciplinary hearing in the employee's absence and fired him. The arbitrator accepted that the employee had previously received several warnings for repeated absenteeism. The arbitrator also found that the employee had been informed, when he phoned in, that he would face dismissal if he did not return to work the following day. The arbitrator found further that, after the first phone call, the employee had not attempted to contact the employer again.
Despite making these findings, the arbitrator still found the dismissal to be unfair because the employer had failed to attempt to contact the employee at his home and had failed to grant the employee a hearing when he returned after the month's absence.
In the light of this decision employers are advised to get proper labour law advice before acting against employees who break the rules.