Maleka v Boyce N.O. and Others [2026] ZACC 7

Case Name: Maleka v Boyce N.O. and Others [2026] ZACC 7

Citation: Maleka v Boyce N.O. and Others (CCT 175/23) [2026] ZACC 7 (24 February 2026)

Court: Constitutional Court of South Africa

Date of Decision: 24 February 2026

Bench Composition: Maya CJ, Madlanga ADCJ, Kollapen J, Majiedt J, Mathopo J, Rogers J, Seegobin AJ, Tolmay AJ and Tshiqi J (9 Judge Bench)

Parties: Applicant (Reynolds Maleka) Respondents (Timothy Boyce, Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration, and ADT SECURITY PTY LTD)

Introduction

This case evolves around the labour laws in South Africa; the protection it offers employees and how it holds employers accountable. There is a process employees are required to follow in cases of employment dissatisfaction and disputes. These processes are meant to protect and guide employees without fearing the power of big corporations. In this case constructive dismissal is the main issue. The judgment clarifies the threshold test for determining constructive dismissal, the difference between present and anticipated intolerable employment conditions, and the need for procedural engagement before resigning.

Facts of the case

The applicant Mr Reynolds Maleka has acquired multiple degrees including a Bachelor of Commerce and a Master of Business Administration.[1] Applicant was an employee of ADT Security a subsidiary of Tyco International. He worked as an Information Technology director from 2014 until 2017 upon his resignation. During his employment the applicant was the sole executive director in his department, he reported directly to the global head of Information Technology at Tyco and the managing director of ADT. However, things took a turn when negotiations for Fidelity Security Group to acquire ADT from Tyco began. As a result of this acquisition, the applicant was required to report to someone on the same level as him. The applicant believed this was indirect demotion and refused to accept the change.  ADT provided that the change was final and best for smooth acquisition of the company, in response to this finality the applicant resigned.[2]

The applicant thereafter referred the matter to CCMA alleging unfair dismissal and constructive dismissal.  His claim for constructive dismissal under section 186(1)(e) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 was dismissed by several legal institutions. The matter was referred to conciliation and arbitration, where the commissioner held that ‘the change was a reasonable operational response to the pending sale of ADT to FSG’. The applicant’s failure to use grievance procedures made it difficult to show that he resigned due to ongoing employment intolerability, it was therefore held that he was not constructively dismissed. [3]

Applicant then approached the Labour Court to review and set aside the arbitration award. Once again, the Court emphasised the lack of usage of grievance procedures. Failure to use grievance procedures indicated a lack of ongoing unfavourable working conditions for the applicant and therefore defeating a constructive dismissal claim. The applicant went higher up in attempt to appeal against the Labour Courts decision at the Labour Appeal Court. The Labour Appeal Court held that the applicant was impulsive to resign without exploring alternative options to resolve the matter such as referring the dispute to the Commission of Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) for unfair labour practices relating to demotion and unfair discrimination. The Appeal Court held that the CCMA and Labour Courts findings were correct and dismissed the applicant’s appeal.[4]

The Constitutional Court is the highest court and the applicant’s final resort in this matter. Applicant approached the Constitutional Court on the very same grounds, constrictive dismissal by ADT, that he be reinstated and to appeal the decisions of the other courts.[5]

Legal Issues

1. Whether the Constitutional Court had jurisdiction over the matter
2. Whether the change in reporting line without change to title, duties and remuneration amounted to intolerable working conditions resulting in constructive dismissal
3. Whether an employee needs to exhaust all grievance procedures before resigning
4. Whether an employee can claim constructive dismissal based on anticipated future intolerable working conditions

Applicants Arguments

Applicant argued that the court had jurisdiction over the matter because it involves the interpretation and application of section 186 (1) (e) of the Labour Relation Act[6] and the Constitutional right to fair labour practices[7]. He submitted that due to the acquisition of ADT his reporting line changed, creating two executives in one department, effectively demoting him. Having two executives in the department made his position redundant, therefore reducing his title and status in the company, he alleges that change in title is equal to demotion. Applicant further alleges that the failure of ADT to inform him of possible changes in his reporting line constituted constructive dismissal.  He submits that he tried speaking to management about his dissatisfaction, but they were determined that their decision was final. The focus should not have been on the applicant’s failure to exhaust grievance procedures but rather on the employer’s unfair labour practices. CCMA, Labour Court and Labour Appeal Court were therefore wrong in their findings.[8]

Respondents Arguments

The respondent argued that the Constitutional Court does not have jurisdiction over the matter merely because the Labour Relations Act is applicable. ADT assured the applicant multiple times that his title, duties, status and remuneration would not be affected by the change in reporting line and was therefore not demoted. They provided that the need for the applicant to report to the new executive was purely to allow for a smooth transition and acquisition. The changes were in no way an attempt to make working conditions intolerable. Furthermore, there was no record of actual intolerable conditions but rather they were only anticipated ones. The respondent sought for the Constitutional Court to dismiss the application and order the applicant to pay costs.[9]

Court’s Reasoning and Analysis

The court held that constructive dismissal is determined objectively, it is not based on the subjective feelings of the employee. The focus is on the employers conduct towards the employee or general workspace in such a way that it affected the employee. The employers conduct must have been so intolerable that a reasonable person could not be expected to continue work[10]. Dissatisfaction, frustration or tension in the workplace does not automatically amount to intolerable conditions to work in. Especially where there are grievance procedures at the employee’s disposal to lighten the load. This high threshold ensures that resignation is last resort and prevents the misuse of constructive dismissal in ordinary workplace situations.

The Constitutional Court emphasised the importance of exhausting internal grievance remedies before resigning. This reinforced the idea that resignation should be of last resort.

Based on the facts of the case, it was found that the alleged intolerable conditions were anticipated and not present.

According to labour laws, in such a claim, the onus rests on the applicant or aggrieved to show on a balance of probabilities that the dismissal was indeed constructive.[11]

Judgment and Ratio Decidendi

The judgment and reasoning have been structured in a way so as to address each legal issue before the court. The court confirmed that it had appropriate jurisdiction over the matter as it involved the interpretation of provisions in the Labour Relations Act and the protection of the constitutional right to fair labour practices. According to the Constitution, the Constitutional Court has jurisdiction over matters of paramount importance relating to protecting and uplifting the right to dignity.[12]

Court held that the change in reporting line did not amount to unfair labour practices as companies are allowed to restructure and have multiple executives in a department. It also did not amount to constructive dismissal as he retained his title, status, duties and remuneration. There was no evidence of intolerable working conditions stemming from the change in reporting line. Based on the objective test, a reasonable person in the same position as the applicant would not have found it impossible to continue employment, therefore there was no constructive dismissal.[13]

Relying on the case of Soldiers Doors v Theron 2004, resignation must be the last resort, employees are expected to exhaust all internal remedies.[14] Constructive dismissal is an exceptional remedy; it is not to be abused by employees who wish to punish employers for the changes they implement.

An employee cannot claim constructive dismissal due to future or anticipated unfavourable working conditions. The reasonable person test would fail in this instance because there is no present threat to consider. Unless the future conditions are certain and have the potential to cause irreversible damage. In this case these conditions were not certain and did not have potential to harm the applicant irreversibly.

Critical Analysis

There was a minority judgment penned and concurred by four judges from the bench. The minority judgment noted the historical racial inequality and ongoing economic inequality in South Africa. It found that the demotion and intolerable working conditions stemmed from the disregard ADT had for a black, highly qualified and successful man in the mist of a white dominated corporate workspace. ADT put a white executive who had not proven to be more experienced and qualified than the applicant. ADT had thus disregarded and demoted his self-worth, hard work and dignity, and this conduct was intolerable for the applicant, creating a clear reason to claim constructive dismissal.[15] However, the majority judgment was held by five judges from the bench, this is the judgment that is considered final. The majority judgment upheld stare decisis in that it emphasised that constructive dismissal test. The test was whether a reasonable person in the same position would be able to continue employment, and the answer was yes. Furthermore, there was no record of intolerable conditions, only anticipated ones.[16] The minority judgment took into consideration the personal and subjective feelings of the applicant, this approach affects the certainty of legal disputes. Although maintaining an objective and predictable legal system is important, so is engaging with constitutional dignity in the workplace. The court may have to examine and consider how dignity interacts with intolerability in future cases.

Conclusion

The Constitutional Court in this case reaffirmed the objective test for determining constructive dismissal. It upheld the importance of using internal grievance mechanisms before going for litigation, in attempt to reach amicable and affordable solutions. As it stands, claiming constructive dismissal remains a rare success as the onus rests on the employee to prove it and is not a response to workplace unhappiness. Employees need to remember that their ego and future fears cannot be protected by the law, especially if they are unfounded. This judgment reinforced the balance between employee protection and employer’s right to restructure.

THE BIBLOGRAPHY

Cases

Maleka v Boyce N.O and Others (CCT 175/23) [2026] ZACC 7 (24 February 2026)

Solid Doors (Pty) Ltd v Theron N.O (2004) ZALAC

Statutes

Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 1996

Labour Relations Act 65 of 1995

[1] Maleka v Boyce N.O. and Others (CCT 175/23) [2026] ZACC 7 (5).

[2] Maleka v Boyce N.O. and Others (CCT 175/23) [2026] ZACC 7 (6-10).

[3] Maleka v Boyce N.O. and Others (CCT 175/23) [2026] ZACC 7 (11-16).

[4] Maleka v Boyce N.O. and Others (CCT 175/23) [2026] ZACC 7 (17-30).

[5] Maleka v Boyce N.O. and Others (CCT 175/23) [2026] ZACC 7 (33-36).

[6] Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995, s 186 (1) (e).

[7] Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 1996, s 23 (1).

[8] Maleka v Boyce N.O. and Others (CCT 175/23) [2026] ZACC 7 (33-36).

[9] Maleka v Boyce N.O. and Others (CCT 175/23) [2026] ZACC 7 (34-36).

[10] Maleka v Boyce N.O. and Others (CCT 175/23) [2026] ZACC 7 (37-42).

[11] Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995, s 192.

[12] Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 1996, s 167 (6).

[13] Maleka v Boyce N.O. and Others (CCT 175/23) [2026] ZACC 7 (52- 60).

[14] Solid Doors (Pty) Ltd v Theron N.O. [2004] ZALAC (14).

[15] Maleka v Boyce N.O. and Others (CCT 175/23) [2026] ZACC 7 (111) (Seegobin AJ).

[16] Maleka v Boyce N.O. and Others (CCT 175/23) [2026] ZACC 7 (112-169) (Madlanga ADCJ).