Case note: Retraction of a ‘hot-headed resignation’ caused by depression: Lessons from Cairncross/Legal and Tax (Pty) Ltd 2019 (2) BALR 137 (CCMA)

• Citation: (2023) 35 SA Merc LJ 110
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.47348/SAMLJ/v35/i1a6
• Published date: 27 February 2024
• Pages: 110-122
• Author: Mangammbi, M.J.
• Date: 27 February 2024

RETRACTION OF A ‘HOT-HEADED

RESIGNATION’ CAUSED BY DEPRESSION:

LESSONS FROM CAIRNCROSS/LEGAL AND

TAX (PTY) LTD 2019 (2) BALR 137 (CCMA)

MAFANYWA JEFFREY MANGAMMBI

Department of Mercantile & Labour Law, University of Limpopo

I INTRODUCTION

Unlike its celebrated siblings, Metropolitan Health Risk Management v

Majatladi 2015 (36) ILJ 958 (LAC) (‘Majatladi’), National Health

Laboratory Service v Yona (2015) 36 ILJ 2259 (LAC) (‘Yona’) and HC

Heat Exchangers (Pty) Ltd v Araujo 2020 (3) BLLR 280 (LC) (‘HC Heat

Exchangers’), Cairncross/Legal and Tax (Pty) Ltd 2019 (2) BALR 137

(CCMA) (‘Cairncross’) is the black sheep of the constructive dismissal

family. The arbitration award in Cairncross brings into sharp focus

emotional distress in the context of constructive dismissal. Cairncross

provides a platform to isolate some of the critical issues that have arisen

in recent times concerning constructive dismissal. First, there is a

troublesome jurisdictional puzzle: Has the employee resigned or was he

or she dismissed? Secondly, the case deals with the vexed question of

what would constitute intolerable circumstances to continue the

employment relationship, and in particular, whether work-related stress

could form the basis of a constructive dismissal claim. In the case under

scrutiny, the employee had claimed that her depression was attributable

to the unbearable working environment. The basis of her claim of

intolerability of continued employment was that an employer has a

common-law and statutory duty to provide a safe working environment,

which it had failed to deliver. Lastly, Cairncross also brings to the fore a

consideration of the effect of tendering a resignation and the aggrieved

employee’s subsequent attempt to withdraw it. The question that is

answered is whether an employer’s failure to accept the withdrawal of

resignation by an employee suffering from work-related stress consti-

tutes a type of constructive dismissal.

110

https://doi.org/10.47348/SAMLJ/v35/i1a6

(2023) 35 SA Merc LJ 110

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd