Fired for refusing a medical test

By Aadil Patel, Director, National Practice Head and Samantha Bonato, Associate, Employment, Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr


The Labour Court case of Pharmaco Distributors (PTY) LTD v Weideman LAC (2017) ZALCJHB 258 was the topic of discussion recently with emphasis placed on the role that the employment contract played in the matter. The case was recently taken to the Labour Appeal Court which further scrutinised the relevant issues. First, let us recap what the case involved.


This matter involved an employee suffering from bipolar disorder who refused to undergo medical testing despite her contract of employment containing a clause which provided that she had to undergo medical testing whenever the employer deemed it to be necessary. The employer ultimately dismissed the employee for disobeying this instruction and the Labour Court found that her dismissal was automatically unfair.


The employer then took this judgment on appeal to the Labour Appeal Court. The Labour Appeal Court ultimately confirmed the decision of the Labour Court. It emphasised the below important principles.


Firstly, it held that the clause in the employee’s contract of employment relied on by the employer is patently offensive and invasive of the privacy rights of the employee. It held that it was plainly inconsistent with s7(1) of the Employment Equity Act, No 55 of 1998 (EEA), which prohibits medical testing of employees unless certain conditions are met. The employer’s argument that “the testing was justified given that the [employee] had consented to undergoing a medical test…” therefore had to fail as consent was not one of the exceptions contained in s7(1) of the EEA.


The Labour Appeal Court also held that there was a clear manifestation of discrimination against the employee because of her bipolar disorder. This was because regardless of her exceptional performance reviews, the mere fact that she suffered from a bipolar disorder was a matter of such concern to the employer that she was dismissed when she refused to undergo the medical testing. Therefore, there was a direct causal connection between the employee’s disorder and the dismissal.


What the Labour Appeal Court importantly added to the Labour Court’s judgment is that no matter what the reasoning behind a request by an employer for an employee to undergo medical tests, such request must be in strict compliance with s7 of the EEA. The Labour Appeal Court dismissed the employer’s appeal in this case and essentially held that neither the argument of consent in terms of the contract, nor operational requirements for the job would stand as a legitimate defence in such circumstances. Therefore, as stated above, the ‘motive’ is irrelevant. 


For more information please contact Aadil Patel at  or Samantha Bonato at

Article published with the kind courtesy of Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr www.cliffedekkerhofmeyr.com







Case Law Summaries and Articles


Can employees be dismissed for refusing to accept new terms and conditions of employment?

Can an employer dismiss employees because they refuse to agree to a change to their terms and conditions of employment? An initial answer may be, “yes”.

Read More >>>


Escape route: “Resignation with immediate effect”

The latest case in the ‘disciplining employees who have resigned with immediate effect’ saga has brought about more uncertainty as to whether an employee who resigns with immediate effect shortly before a disciplinary hearing can avoid disciplinary action and subsequent dismissal.

Read More >>>


Freedom of expression or incitement to commit an offence? A constitutional challenge

On 4 July 2019, the North Gauteng High Court handed down judgment in the case of The EFF and other v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and other (87638/2017 and 45666/2017) in which the EFF and Julius Malema (the applicants) sought to have s18(2)(b) of the Riotous Assemblies Act, No 17 of 1956 (Riotous Act) declared unconstitutional.

Read More >>>


Consolidated, comprehensive or general final written warnings

Regarding dismissal, according to the Code of Good Practice, “the courts have endorsed the concept of corrective or progressive discipline. This approach regards the purpose of discipline as a means for employees to know and understand what standards are required of them.

Read More >>>







Courses and Workshops





 Our Clients 


Android App On Google Play

Android App On Google Play