The Canteen Standoff: Why Five Workers Lost Their Jobs and Their Final Appeal

It started with a cancelled BMW order and ended with five men losing their final legal appeal, their jobs gone over a meeting that never was. This week, the Labour Appeal Court drew a firm, final line under a tense 2018 workplace standoff at Feltex Automotive, delivering a judgment that serves as a stark lesson in the limits of protest and the power of a lawful instruction.

The story is a layered one, set against the familiar South African backdrop of restructuring anxiety. When BMW pulled its order for headrests, Feltex entered consultations with the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA) over potential retrenchments. Fear was in the air. But then, a reprieve: the company decided against letting anyone go, opting instead to redeploy all affected workers to other departments. NUMSA was informed and agreed to relay the good news to its members.

But on March 12, 2018, five employees from the Grammar Line departmentThulani Dladla, Thabang Mogaswa, Phenyo Hlongwane, Tshililo Magadani and Tshepiso Mabuseladid not report to their new posts. Instead, they gathered in the company canteen. Their stated reason? They were waiting for a union organiser to discuss the retrenchments they believed were still on the table.

Management’s version was clear: no such meeting was scheduled or authorised. They instructed the men to return to work or leave the premises. Two written ultimatums followed, warning that their refusal amounted to participating in an illegal strike. The workers dug in. They would wait for their union representative.

From Dispute to Dismissal

That several-hour defiance proved fatal to their employment. Charged with participating in an unauthorised meeting (classified as “riotous behaviour” under company rules), failing to obey a lawful instruction, and insubordination, they were dismissed after a disciplinary hearing. Their journey through the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA), then the Labour Court, and finally the Labour Appeal Court, ended in unanimous agreement: the dismissal was fair.

The workers’ appealsthat they weren’t rostered, that the meeting was union-sanctioned, that dismissal was too harshwere systematically rejected. The court found no proof the gathering was authorised. Critically, it ruled that the instruction to return to work was both lawful and reasonable. By choosing to remain in the canteen, the employees were not merely absent; they were engaged in a “persistent, deliberate and defiant” act of insubordination.

The Broken Trust and the Bigger Picture

Perhaps the most decisive part of the judgment focused on trust. The court emphasised that this insubordination occurred during a particularly sensitive perioda redeployment process designed specifically to save jobs. Their actions, the ruling suggested, damaged the foundational trust of the employment relationship at a time when the company was trying to navigate a crisis collaboratively.

For workers and unions, the case underscores a crucial procedural point: the right to union representation does not grant a licence to unilaterally down tools and occupy workplace space. The proper channels for dispute resolution must be followed, even when frustration is high.

For employers, the judgment reinforces that clear, reasonable instructions, backed by fair procedure, will be upheld by the courts when employees engage in outright defiance.

In the end, the Feltex five gambled on a meeting that wasn’t coming. Their stand, born from uncertainty, cost them their jobs. The court’s message is now part of the record: in the workplace, even with the best intentions, you cannot simply refuse to move when lawfully told to do so. The canteen, on that day, was not a place of meeting, but of a final, costly misunderstanding.