THE EMPLOYER’S DUTY TO CONFIRM AN EMPLOYEE’S INTENTION TO RESIGN

2026/03

The applicant, after an emotional meeting with the respondent’s owner, indicated that she would start looking for other employment. Subsequently, the applicant discovered her salary and leave had been paid and she had been removed from the company WhatsApp group, leading her to believe she had been dismissed. The commissioner ruled that the applicant’s conduct did not amount to a resignation and the respondent should have confirmed her intention to resign. She was awarded compensation.

Lamprecht / CN Lourens Warden (Pty) Ltd (2024) 33 CCMA 7.1.8

Case summary

Clarisse Lamprecht, the applicant, was employed by CN Lourens Warden (Pty) Ltd, the respondent. The applicant held the position of a general worker/cashier and earned R6000,00 per month. The applicant commenced employment with the respondent on 1 February 2023 and the employment relationship was terminated on 21 November 2023.

The applicant accused two managers, Yolandi and Dave, of theft. After an emotional meeting with the respondent’s owner, Carel, on 20 November 2023, she expressed her intention to look for other work. The owner gave her the rest of the day off to calm down. The applicant misinterpreted this statement and took a day off instead of only “the day off”. However, the commissioner did not deem her conduct as absconding from the workplace as no intent was present.

She subsequently collapsed, sought medical attention and informed the owner via e-mail of her emotional distress. The applicant then discovered her salary and leave had been paid and she had been removed from the company WhatsApp group, leading her to believe she had been dismissed. The respondent contended she had resigned and the dispute was referred to the CCMA in terms of section 191(5)(a) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995, as amended, as a claim of unfair dismissal for reasons related to misconduct.

The respondent raised a preliminary point in that the applicant was not dismissed.

The commissioner referred to the matter of CEPPWAWU and another v Glass and Aluminum 2000 CC [2002] 5 BLLR 399 (LAC), (2002) 23 ILJ 695 (LAC), where it was held that resignation in the heat of the moment does not terminate the employment contract if the employee has second thoughts soon thereafter. As a result, a refusal to accept a withdrawal of a resignation in such limited circumstances as prevailed in this case, amounted to a dismissal.

Similar to the finding in the above judgment, the commissioner ruled that the respondent ought to have made sure that it was indeed the applicant’s intention to terminate her service before accepting her actions as a resignation.

The commissioner also referred to the matter of Sihlali v SABC Ltd (J700/08) [2010] ZALC 1; (2010) 31 ILJ 1477 (LC); [2010] 5 BLLR 542 (LC), where it was held that a resignation is established by a subjective intention to terminate the employment relationship, and words or conduct by the employee that, objectively viewed, clearly and unambiguously evince that intention. The courts generally look for unambiguous, unequivocal words that amount to a resignation.

The commissioner, therefore, held that no dismissal took place. Objectively viewed, a reasonable person would not have concluded, based on the applicant’s conduct, that she no longer had the intention to fulfil her part of the employment contract.

It then follows that the applicant was able to prove the existence of a dismissal. The applicant was dismissed without following a fair procedure and with no regard to the audi alteram partem principle. So, it was held that the applicant’s dismissal was substantively and procedurally unfair. The applicant was awarded compensation equal to two months’ salary: R12,000.00

This article does not constitute legal advice. For an informed opinion and/or assistance with a labour-related matter, you are encouraged to arrange a formal consultation with the author.

We will continue to keep you informed and updated.

Inform Empower Comply 

Since 1998