The recent judgment in the matter of Mediclinic Nelspruit (Pty) Ltd v Shiba and Others (JR1899/21) [2025] ZALCJHB 218 (9 June 2025) serves as a stark reminder of how problematic workplace relationships can become for employers. In this matter, the first Respondent, Charles Thamsanqa Shiba (‘Shiba’), was employed as an HR Business Partner (‘HRBP’) for Mediclinic Nelspruit. Shiba was involved in a romantic relationship with a colleague by the name of Nyakane. After their relationship ended, Shiba made multiple attempts to rekindle the relationship, despite Nyakane’s clear objections, including obtaining a protection order against him. Shiba persisted, using workplace channels to contact her, even after management instructed him to cease all communication. Eventually, Shiba was charged and dismissed for unprofessional and unacceptable conduct towards Nyakane and for using his position to intimidate her.

This case highlights a significant risk: when one party continues to pursue the other after a relationship ends, it can easily cross the line into harassment. The Code of Good Practice defines harassment as “any unwanted conduct which impairs dignity”. Although in the above case, Shiba was not formally charged with harassment, it is easy to understand how this kind of behaviour could be considered harassment. This creates a fine line between romantic pursuit and harassment, which could ultimately lead to issues for the employer.

In the Mediclinic case, one of the elements of the charge was that Shiba used his position as HRBP to intimidate Nyakane. This exemplifies how authority can be leveraged inappropriately after a relationship ends. Similar concerns have emerged in the ongoing case involving Judge President Mbenenge, where allegations of sexual harassment have been raised. The complainant claims that she occasionally went along with his advances, not out of genuine willingness or interest, but because of his senior position and the influence he held over her in the workplace. While these are still allegations, they highlight the significant risks associated with pursuing romantic relationships at work, especially in situations marked by an imbalance of power.

Such situations can damage the employer’s reputation, as employee behaviour within the workplace is often closely tied to the employer’s overall operations and responsibilities. It is frequently the employer who bears the brunt of a failed romantic relationship between staff members. This burden can include financial loss arising from the need to appoint legal representation, the potential loss of employees who possess valuable institutional knowledge, and the disruption of operational requirements. Managers and HR personnel are often required to spend significant time mediating disputes or managing disciplinary processes, rather than focusing on core business objectives. In some instances, workplace tensions may lead to grievances, allegations of harassment, or even litigation, which can further damage the employer’s reputation and strain workplace morale.

Despite these concerns for most employers, there are no specific provisions in South African labour law that regulate workplace fraternisation. Imposing a complete ban on romantic relationships in the workplace may be unrealistic and could violate employees’ Constitutional rights, including their rights to privacy and freedom of association. As judge T Lhotlhalemaje aptly observed in Rustenburg Platinum Mines Limited v UASA obo Pietersen and Others (JR641/2016) [2018] ZALCJHB 72; (2018) 39 ILJ 1330 (LC), feelings of attraction and emotions are part of human nature. However, it remains essential for employers to safeguard the integrity of the workplace, necessitating the establishment of clear boundaries and regulations to maintain a harmonious and professional environment.

To reduce the risks associated with workplace relationships, employers can introduce a clear and comprehensive dating policy. This policy might include requirements for employees to promptly disclose the start or end of a romantic relationship, restrictions on public displays of affection at work, and strong discouragement of relationships where one employee has direct authority over the other. Such measures may help to promote transparency, avoid conflicts of interest, and ensure a respectful, productive, and legally compliant workplace environment.

Tips:

• Establish clear policies on workplace relationships:
  • While a total ban may infringe on employee rights, employers can mitigate risks by implementing a dating policy that promotes transparency, discourages relationships involving power imbalances, and establishes clear boundaries for professional conduct at work.
• Act swiftly to address inappropriate behaviour:
  • If a workplace relationship turns problematic, employers must intervene promptly and fairly. This includes preventing harassment, protecting affected employees, and managing conflicts of interest to safeguard workplace integrity, reputation, and productivity.

Written by Afrika Somthi, Dispute Resolution Official, CEO SA