Disputes over instructions in the workplace are not uncommon. For example – an employee refuses to carry out a task, citing unfairness or irrelevance to their role. The matter escalates into a disciplinary inquiry, and sometimes, all the way to the CCMA under allegations of unfair dismissal.

In today’s compliance-driven work environment, it is critical for employers to distinguish between insubordination and legitimate refusal. While employees are generally expected to follow instructions from their superiors, not every act of defiance amounts to misconduct.

What is Insubordination?

Insubordination occurs when an employee wilfully refuses to follow a lawful and reasonable instruction from someone in authority. To qualify as insubordination, three elements must typically be present:

  • A clear and direct instruction from a person with the appropriate authority;
  • The instruction must be lawful (i.e. not illegal, unethical, or in breach of company policy); and
  • The instruction must be reasonable under the circumstances.

Insubordination is regarded as serious misconduct, especially when it is deliberate, public, or repeated. However, not all refusal constitutes insubordination, as the law recognises that obedience is not absolute.

The “Lawful and Reasonable” Test

For disciplinary action or dismissal due to insubordination to be fair, the instruction in question must meet two criteria:

  • Lawful: The instruction must not require the employee to break the law, violate health and safety regulations, breach their employment contract, or contradict company policies.
  • Reasonable: The instruction should be fair, practical, and appropriate in the circumstances. It must not be degrading, discriminatory, or completely outside the scope of the employee’s role. Importantly, an instruction that is unpleasant or inconvenient is not necessarily unreasonable.

When is Refusal Justified?

Employees have a duty to follow lawful and reasonable instructions. However, there are circumstances where a refusal may be justified and not constitute misconduct.

Refusal may be justified if:

  • The instruction is illegal (e.g. involves fraud or falsifying documents);
  • It creates a serious health or safety risk;
  • It breaches the employment contract, collective agreement, or company policies.

Refusal is not justified if:

  • The instruction is lawful, but the employee simply disagrees with it;
  • The task is undesirable, menial, or outside the employee’s preferred duties, but still within the scope of their role;
  • The refusal is based on personal feelings, pride, or a misunderstanding of the instruction.

Case Law Overview

In City of Cape Town v South African Local Government Bargaining Council and Others (C26/2023) [2025] ZALCCT 87 (16 September 2025), the Labour Court examined whether the dismissal of an employee who refused to conduct a municipal meter inspection was fair. The court found the arbitrator had misapplied the legal standard and emphasised that an employer must demonstrate that the instruction was appropriate within the context. The ruling confirmed that employees are not expected to follow instructions blindly, particularly where legal or ethical concerns arise. Insubordination must be evaluated based on context, and only lawful and reasonable instructions can support a charge of misconduct.

In Lebowa Platinum Mines Ltd v Hill [1998] 7 BLLR 666 (LAC), a mineworker refused to comply with an instruction he believed was unsafe. The Labour Appeal Court sided with the employee, affirming that the right to refuse dangerous work is consistent with occupational health and safety law. This case continues to reinforce the principle that safety-related refusals must be taken seriously, and employers cannot assume that all defiance constitutes insubordination. This leading case remains relevant decades later. An underground mineworker refused to follow an instruction he believed was unsafe. The Labour Appeal Court sided with the employee, ruling that the right to refuse dangerous work is consistent with occupational safety laws. Safety-related refusals must be taken seriously, and employers should never assume that all disobedience is misconduct.

Conclusion

Drawing the line between insubordination and justified refusal is crucial for effective workplace management. While employees are expected to follow instructions, employers must ensure that any directive is both lawful and reasonable before initiating disciplinary action. To mitigate legal risks and maintain a fair workplace culture, employers should clearly communicate instructions, assess whether the directive was appropriate and justified, keep detailed records of incidents, and approach disciplinary matters consistently and objectively.