Why employees disobey instructions
Wilful disobedience to a lawful order given by the employer is considered a very serious offence in most organisations’ codes of conduct.
It also appears in section 4(b) of the 2006 National Employment Code of Conduct Regulations (Statutory Instrument 15 of 2006).
The core of any contract of employment is that the employee must obey a proper order of the employer. Sometimes employees disregard this.
In this article, I will highlight the most common reasons why employees, rightly or wrongly, refuse to obey the employer.
It is customary to hear an employee arguing that he cannot carry out an order because it is not in his job description.
There are some tasks that are unquestionably outside an employee’s job description.
In this case, the employee will be justified in refusing to carry them out.
However, it is seldom possible to fully describe everything that an employee is expected to do in the course of the employment relationship.
Some tasks are implied, meaning that the mention of one task entails the carrying out of another task.
Employees should therefore be careful that if a specific task is not stated in writing in the job description, there must be good and valid reasons why they cannot carry it out, otherwise they may be committing an act of misconduct.
In the 1998 case of Zupco versus Mabande and Another, the Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of driving instructors who had refused to drive buses in the absence of striking bus drivers.
The court decided that the instruction fell within the scope of their job descriptions.
Similarly, the Labour Court in Masawi versus Silver Ranch (Pvt) Limited (2004), the court endorsed the dismissal of a head waiter who had defied instructions to serve refreshments to guests, on the basis that this was a demeaning task.
Religion has an important influence in the world of work, as the faithful bring their values into the workplace.
A Seventh-Day Adventist is likely to refuse to report for work on a Saturday because it goes against his religion.
Similarly, if you are a butchery owner, do not ask a Muslim to chop pork carcasses.
In a world of multiple beliefs and religious diversity, there is much to be gained by finding common ground.
These issues should ideally be resolved at the hiring stage prior to the employee signing a contract of employment.
However, in case where business requirements change after the employee has been engaged, say through acquisition of another business, refusal to carry out an order could cripple the employer’s business.
The employer may have no choice but to move the employee to another position within the organisation, transfer him to another division or consider retrenchment.
Employees may refuse to work overtime citing various reasons.
Ordinarily, overtime is voluntary, meaning an employee can legally say “no” to a supervisor’s instruction to report for overtime.
There are statutory provisions governing the working of overtime.
Most importantly, the consent of the employee must be sought and reasonable notice given before commencement of overtime work.
A number of collective bargaining agreements require that 24 hours prior notice is given to an employee.
Section 14C of the Labour Act requires that every employee is allowed at least 24 consecutive hours of rest in any seven-day period.
If an employee does not get a good reason why he should work the full seven days without rest, he may object.
An employee may have genuine reasons for not working overtime, for instance, if he or she will have problems in getting transport home after work.
In that case, an acceptable mutual arrangement has to be made.
However, refusal to work overtime when one had initially agreed to or in an emergency situation is an offence.
It is the employee’s duty to protect his employer’s interests unless he has good reasons to the contrary.
Each situation requires careful analysis, for instance, a driver and his crew cannot abandon a vehicle by the roadside simply because it is knock-off time and driving back to the company would mean working overtime.
Such conduct is unacceptable as it places the employer’s property at risk.
An employee may refuse to carry out an instruction, if by doing so, he could be putting himself in danger.
Various statutes provide for safety precautions that must be observed in work areas and sometimes provide for immediate work stoppage if an unsafe condition is not rectified.
Section 104 (4) (a) of the Labour Act even legalises collective job action where there is an occupational hazard posing an immediate threat to employee health or safety.
Supervisors who issue instructions in an unreasonable, unacceptable or offensive manner may also cause subordinates to disobey them.
It is also normal for an employee to refuse to carry out an instruction “in the heat of the moment”.
We all get into a bad mood at some stage.
There are so many stressors within or outside the work environment that we have to contend with on a daily basis.
The employee may later carry out the instruction. If, however, the employee does not show any remorse and continues to defy instructions, the due disciplinary process should be set in motion.
Over the years, the Supreme Court has defined elements upon which a charge of wilful disobedience to a lawful order can be sustained by the employer:
the order must be given by the employer, for the advancement of the employer’s business, capable of being carried out by the employee, closely related to the duties of the employee, must not be a wrongful act and, most importantly, the employee must refuse to carry out the order and actually not carry it out.
Managers should be reasonable and analyse each situation carefully before taking appropriate action.
Sometimes counselling the employee privately may produce a more fruitful result than a knee-jerk inclination to apply the disciplinary code.
• Isaac Mazanhi is a member of the Employers’ Confederation of Zimbabwe (Emcoz) Labour Committee.
The views expressed here do not necessarily represent those of Emcoz. The writer may be contacted on 0913 063 653 or email: isaacm@gmail.com
The core of any contract of employment is that the employee must obey a proper order of the employer. Sometimes employees disregard this.
In this article, I will highlight the most common reasons why employees, rightly or wrongly, refuse to obey the employer.
It is customary to hear an employee arguing that he cannot carry out an order because it is not in his job description.
There are some tasks that are unquestionably outside an employee’s job description.
In this case, the employee will be justified in refusing to carry them out.
However, it is seldom possible to fully describe everything that an employee is expected to do in the course of the employment relationship.
Some tasks are implied, meaning that the mention of one task entails the carrying out of another task.
Employees should therefore be careful that if a specific task is not stated in writing in the job description, there must be good and valid reasons why they cannot carry it out, otherwise they may be committing an act of misconduct.
In the 1998 case of Zupco versus Mabande and Another, the Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of driving instructors who had refused to drive buses in the absence of striking bus drivers.
The court decided that the instruction fell within the scope of their job descriptions.
Similarly, the Labour Court in Masawi versus Silver Ranch (Pvt) Limited (2004), the court endorsed the dismissal of a head waiter who had defied instructions to serve refreshments to guests, on the basis that this was a demeaning task.
Religion has an important influence in the world of work, as the faithful bring their values into the workplace.
A Seventh-Day Adventist is likely to refuse to report for work on a Saturday because it goes against his religion.
Similarly, if you are a butchery owner, do not ask a Muslim to chop pork carcasses.
In a world of multiple beliefs and religious diversity, there is much to be gained by finding common ground.
These issues should ideally be resolved at the hiring stage prior to the employee signing a contract of employment.
However, in case where business requirements change after the employee has been engaged, say through acquisition of another business, refusal to carry out an order could cripple the employer’s business.
The employer may have no choice but to move the employee to another position within the organisation, transfer him to another division or consider retrenchment.
Employees may refuse to work overtime citing various reasons.
Ordinarily, overtime is voluntary, meaning an employee can legally say “no” to a supervisor’s instruction to report for overtime.
There are statutory provisions governing the working of overtime.
Most importantly, the consent of the employee must be sought and reasonable notice given before commencement of overtime work.
A number of collective bargaining agreements require that 24 hours prior notice is given to an employee.
Section 14C of the Labour Act requires that every employee is allowed at least 24 consecutive hours of rest in any seven-day period.
If an employee does not get a good reason why he should work the full seven days without rest, he may object.
An employee may have genuine reasons for not working overtime, for instance, if he or she will have problems in getting transport home after work.
In that case, an acceptable mutual arrangement has to be made.
However, refusal to work overtime when one had initially agreed to or in an emergency situation is an offence.
It is the employee’s duty to protect his employer’s interests unless he has good reasons to the contrary.
Each situation requires careful analysis, for instance, a driver and his crew cannot abandon a vehicle by the roadside simply because it is knock-off time and driving back to the company would mean working overtime.
Such conduct is unacceptable as it places the employer’s property at risk.
An employee may refuse to carry out an instruction, if by doing so, he could be putting himself in danger.
Various statutes provide for safety precautions that must be observed in work areas and sometimes provide for immediate work stoppage if an unsafe condition is not rectified.
Section 104 (4) (a) of the Labour Act even legalises collective job action where there is an occupational hazard posing an immediate threat to employee health or safety.
Supervisors who issue instructions in an unreasonable, unacceptable or offensive manner may also cause subordinates to disobey them.
It is also normal for an employee to refuse to carry out an instruction “in the heat of the moment”.
We all get into a bad mood at some stage.
There are so many stressors within or outside the work environment that we have to contend with on a daily basis.
The employee may later carry out the instruction. If, however, the employee does not show any remorse and continues to defy instructions, the due disciplinary process should be set in motion.
Over the years, the Supreme Court has defined elements upon which a charge of wilful disobedience to a lawful order can be sustained by the employer:
the order must be given by the employer, for the advancement of the employer’s business, capable of being carried out by the employee, closely related to the duties of the employee, must not be a wrongful act and, most importantly, the employee must refuse to carry out the order and actually not carry it out.
Managers should be reasonable and analyse each situation carefully before taking appropriate action.
Sometimes counselling the employee privately may produce a more fruitful result than a knee-jerk inclination to apply the disciplinary code.
• Isaac Mazanhi is a member of the Employers’ Confederation of Zimbabwe (Emcoz) Labour Committee.
The views expressed here do not necessarily represent those of Emcoz. The writer may be contacted on 0913 063 653 or email: isaacm@gmail.com
