Article 18/2025

What is an employer to do when it suspects that a medical practitioner is issuing pre- signed sick notes, or permitting its employees to buy sick notes, or, alternatively, is engaging in some other dubious practice regarding the issue of sick notes? What is an employer to do when it suspects that a person is not entitled to practice as a medical doctor?

_____________________________________

The labour appeal court, in Woolworths (Pty) Ltd v CCMA and Others [2024] 8 BLLR 881 (LAC); (2024) 45 ILJ 2270 (LAC), provided the following guidelines in the above regard:

  • the employer is required to investigate the matter and report it to the relevant authorities, including the Health Professions Council of South Africa, the South African Medical and Dental Council and the Health Science Academy (if the practitioner holds a dispensing certificate);
  • the idea that an employee, who happens to go to a doctor who is not trusted (or a person suspected of not being a medical practitioner), must be subjected to a disciplinary process for utilising the services of such person is rejected – at the very least, the employer should investigate these suspicions and, if the suspicions are well-founded, the employee should be warned against using the particular doctor;
  • at all relevant times, the investigation into the alleged conduct should be conducted by the relevant entities as identified above.

In terms of s34(1) of the BCEA, an employer may not make deductions from an employee’s remuneration unless, subject to s34(2), the employee agrees, in writing, or the deduction is made in terms of a law, collective agreement, court order or arbitration award.

A case is moot and therefore not justiciable if it no longer presents an existing or live controversy. With reference to National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Others [1999] ZACC 17; 2000 (2) SA 1 (CC), how did the supreme court of appeal, in Mhlontlo Local Municipality and Others v Ngcangula and Another (2024) 35 SALLR 132 (SCA) recently deal with this issue?

The principle underlying the doctrine of peremption is that no person can be allowed to take up two positions inconsistent with one another, or, as is commonly expressed, to blow hot and cold, to approbate and reprobate when considering pursuing litigation. With reference to Qoboshiyane NO v Avusa Publishing Eastern Cape [2012] ZASCA 166; 2013 (3) SA 315 (SCA), what is the test to be applied to determine whether or not a party has perempted its right to institute legal proceedings?