On 28 March 2025, the Labour Court delivered its decision in Makombe v Cape Conference of the Seventh-day Adventists. The court held that the claimant pastor was constructively dismissed – even though she resigned of her own accord. The judgment confirms that an employer can be held liable not only for direct mistreatment, but also for passively allowing a toxic work environment to fester.
Constructive dismissal
The Labour Relations Act, 1995 defines ‘dismissal’ to include circumstances where an employee who resigns may still be considered ‘dismissed’ if the employer has made continued employment intolerable. The threshold is objective – would a reasonable person in the same circumstances have felt compelled to resign? The employer’s conduct, whether through direct action or by failing to address a toxic environment, must be the root cause of the intolerable conditions giving rise to the resignation. Importantly, the burden of proof initially rests with the employee to demonstrate constructive dismissal, whereafter the employer must justify its actions or omissions, by demonstrating that the dismissal was nonetheless fair.
Snapshot of the facts
Between 2014 and 2020, the pastor, one of the few female pastors in the church, was repeatedly transferred across various districts, often to environments where congregants were openly opposed to women in ministry. Throughout her tenure, she consistently raised formal grievances regarding the hostility she faced, allegations of discrimination, and the significant toll on her mental health. Despite these repeated complaints, the employer’s interventions were largely superficial and failed to address the underlying issues.
The situation reached a critical point during her posting to George in 2020, where congregants rejected her leadership and subjected her to abuse on social media platforms. Although the employer offered verbal assurances of support, no substantive action was taken to remedy the situation.
The pastor resigned in November 2020 and pursued a claim for constructive dismissal. While the CCMA did not find in her favour, the Labour Court, upon review, overturned this decision, finding that she had been constructively dismissed and awarded her twelve months’ compensation and legal costs.
The court’s reasoning
The court emphasised that liability for constructive dismissal can arise not only from direct acts of mistreatment but also from neglect or omission. The church’s failure to intervene when congregants harassed the pastor constituted a breach of its duty of care. The court highlighted that constructive dismissal is rarely the result of a single incident; rather, it is often the cumulative effect of unresolved grievances, repeated incidents, and persistent inaction that renders continued employment intolerable.
The court further noted that the pastor had exhausted all internal remedies before resigning, demonstrating that resignation was indeed a measure of last resort.
Important take-aways
This judgment confirms that silence or vague assurances are insufficient when faced with allegations of workplace hostility or discrimination. It is essential for employers to implement concrete, documented action plans to address complaints and to follow through with meaningful interventions.
Liability can arise from the actions of third parties if the employer fails to act when it is able to take remedial steps. Early warning signs of mental health distress should prompt immediate support measures.
Having robust equal-opportunity policies is not enough; leadership must actively enforce these policies to create a genuinely inclusive and safe workplace.
The judgment reinforces an important principle: constructive dismissal is not confined to egregious acts such as overt insults or demotions. Persistent neglect and failure to address ongoing workplace issues can, over time, create an environment so intolerable that resignation becomes the only reasonable option for the employee.