A manager’s firm approach to underperformance may be perceived as harassment, prompting employees to file a grievance. How do employers navigate this in a way that balances performance management with the employer’s legal duty to prevent harassment?]

In Russell v Aspen Pharmacare [2025] 5 BALR 496 (NBCCI), a bargaining council arbitrator had to consider whether a warehouse manager’s dismissal for alleged workplace bullying and harassment was fair. The case serves as an important reminder for employers that navigating the line between performance management and harassment claims can be complicated.

Background

The applicant was a long-serving warehouse manager at Aspen Pharmacare until his dismissal in December 2023, following grievances from two subordinates who alleged that his management style constituted bullying and harassment. A third employee also lodged a complaint but did not testify at arbitration.

Russell maintained that his conduct amounted to nothing more than holding his team accountable for poor performance, and that the complaints were based on misinterpretations of ordinary managerial interventions.

The arbitrator’s findings

The arbitrator found the dismissal substantively unfair and ordered Russell’s reinstatement with six months’ back pay.

Key findings included:

• No evidence of power abuse or repeated aggressive behaviour was presented to support the allegations of workplace bullying as defined in the Code of Good Practice: Prevention and Elimination of Harassment.
• The complainants’ testimonies lacked credibility, were internally contradictory, and at times exaggerated.
• Instructing employees to improve performance or meet deadlines does not amount to bullying, even if done firmly.
• Allegations of shouting or humiliation were unsubstantiated.

Lessons for employers

This case serves as a cautionary tale for employers. While harassment and bullying must be taken seriously, there is a distinction between assertive supervision and harassment or bullying. In the absence of evidence of abuse, verbal or otherwise, holding staff accountable does not automatically amount to bullying.

Before acting on allegations of bullying or harassment, employers must ensure that these are supported by solid evidence – emotional discomfort alone, without proof of abuse or misconduct, may not meet the threshold for harassment. Employers should also be wary of overreacting to complaints rooted in resistance to authority. Employees may perceive discipline or performance management as bullying when, in fact, it is justified managerial oversight.

Conclusion

Workplace harmony depends not only on mutual respect, but also on clear expectations and performance accountability. As this case illustrates, a manager’s right – and duty – to enforce standards must be preserved, provided it is done appropriately and respectfully.

For more information on the Code of Good Practice: Prevention and Elimination of Harassment, see our previous article at https://labourwise.co.za/labour-articles/code-of-good-practice-workplace-harassment

Written by Barney Jordaan for www.labourwise.co.za