Unauthorised Absence: Why Finding a Replacement Does Not Excuse Non-Attendance

Unauthorised absence can create significant disciplinary and operational challenges for employers, particularly where employees are required to work scheduled shifts or rostered hours. Employers depend on employees reporting for their scheduled working hours or shifts to maintain operational efficiency, meet customer and client expectations, ensure business continuity, and fulfil their contractual and legal obligations. Whether an organisation operates fixed working hours, rotating shifts or roster-based scheduling, employees are generally expected to report for duty unless they have obtained prior approval for leave, an amended work schedule or an authorised shift swap in accordance with the employer’s policies and procedures. A common misconception is that an employee is not absent if they arrange for another employee to work in their place. Ensuring that work is covered and complying with an employee’s own attendance obligations are two separate matters. While a replacement employee may prevent operational disruption, this does not excuse the originally scheduled employee’s failure to report for duty or comply with the employer’s procedures governing changes to working arrangements.

Attendance Is a Personal Employment Obligation

An employee’s obligation to report for work is a personal contractual duty. Unless the employer’s rules or the employee’s contract provide otherwise, that obligation cannot ordinarily be discharged simply by arranging for another employee to perform the scheduled work without the employer’s prior approval. In many workplaces, employees are scheduled or rostered according to operational requirements, business needs and the employer’s staffing arrangements. Employers are therefore entitled to regulate shift changes and require that any substitutions receive approval from the appropriate manager or authorised decision-maker. Where an employee arranges for a colleague to work a scheduled shift without obtaining the required approval, the replacement employee may satisfy the employer’s operational needs, but the originally scheduled employee has not necessarily fulfilled their own attendance obligations.

Why Shift Coverage Does Not Eliminate Unauthorised Absence

When an employee arranges for a colleague to cover a shift without obtaining the employer’s approval, two separate questions arise:

• Were the employer’s operational requirements met?
• Did the originally scheduled employee comply with their obligation to report for duty or obtain approval for the change?

Although the employer may not have experienced any operational disruption, this does not alter the fact that the employee failed to comply with the applicable attendance or shift-change procedures. Operational continuity and individual accountability are distinct issues and should be considered independently. Accordingly, where the prescribed approval process has not been followed, an employer may regard the employee as having been absent without authorisation and deal with the matter in accordance with its workplace rules and disciplinary procedures.

Case Studies

The foundation of every employment relationship, whether governed by a written or oral contract, is that an employee is required to report for work at the agreed time, perform the duties for which they were employed, and remain at work for the duration of their scheduled working hours. An employee who fails to do so without lawful justification or the employer’s approval may be in breach of their contractual obligations and may commit misconduct. In Sibanye Rustenburg Platinum Mines v CCMA and Others [2025] ZALCJHB 207, the Labour Court confirmed that unauthorised absence from work constitutes misconduct and may justify dismissal where an employee breaches the employer’s attendance or absenteeism policies without a valid reason. The Court recognised that employers have a legitimate interest in enforcing attendance rules, as regular attendance is essential to maintaining workplace discipline and meeting operational requirements. Likewise, in Glencore Operations South Africa (Pty) Ltd (Western Chrome Mines) v NUMSA obo Motsepe and Others (2022) 43 ILJ 2025 (LC), the Labour Court recognised that employers have a legitimate interest in regulating work schedules and ensuring that changes to shift arrangements occur only through the prescribed approval process, given the impact such changes may have on operational planning, payroll administration and overtime management.

Practical Implications for Employers

This line of authority reinforces an important principle of workplace discipline: an employee cannot unilaterally decide who will perform their scheduled work. While employers may permit shift swaps or substitutions, they are entitled to require that such arrangements be approved in advance and in accordance with established workplace procedures. Employers should ensure that their attendance, scheduling and shift-swap policies clearly identify who is authorised to approve changes to work schedules and that these policies are consistently communicated and applied. Equally, employees should understand that arranging for a colleague to perform a scheduled shift does not automatically excuse their own non-attendance or relieve them of their contractual obligations. Where an employee fails to comply with the prescribed approval process, the employer may address the matter through its disciplinary procedures, provided its workplace rules are lawful, reasonable and consistently enforced.

Conclusion

The fact that another employee ultimately performs the work does not, on its own, determine whether the originally scheduled employee complied with their employment obligations. The legal question is not simply whether the work was completed, but whether the employee adhered to the employer’s lawful workplace rules governing attendance and changes to work schedules. Employers are entitled to regulate attendance and shift changes through reasonable workplace rules, and employees are expected to comply with those rules unless authorised to do otherwise. Maintaining clear procedures, applying them consistently, and ensuring that employees understand their individual responsibility to report for work remain essential components of sound workplace discipline and effective workforce management.