Can you be dismissed for absenteeism or late coming?

Absenteeism is one of the most common reasons for discipline in South African workplaces, and one of the most mishandled. Employers lose patience with an employee who is often away or always late. Employees are dismissed for absences they thought were covered by a sick note, or warned for lateness caused by a taxi strike. This guide explains when absence and late coming are misconduct, the progressive discipline an employer is expected to follow, when dismissal is fair, how illness changes the picture, what "no work, no pay" means for your salary, and where desertion fits in.

This guide is part of our Discipline at work: warnings, hearings and dismissal, which links every guide on the topic.

Absence and late coming as misconduct

Most disciplinary codes treat the following as misconduct:

• being absent without permission or a valid reason, often called AWOL
• failing to notify the employer of an absence in the way the code requires
• arriving late, leaving early, or taking extended breaks without permission
• abusing sick leave, for example by producing a false medical certificate

The common thread is choice. The employee could have attended or arrived on time, or could at least have told the employer, and did not. That is what makes it conduct rather than capacity.

The rule must be known. Under item 8 of the Code of Good Practice: Dismissal, 2025, which came into force on 4 September 2025, an arbitrator considers whether the employee was aware, or could reasonably be expected to have been aware, of the rule, and whether it has been applied consistently. An employer that has tolerated late arrivals for years cannot suddenly dismiss one employee for them without first making clear that the rule will now be enforced.

Progressive discipline comes first

Item 6 of the 2025 Code says discipline is corrective and should work through graduated measures. Informal advice is often the best way to deal with minor lapses, and repeated misconduct warrants warnings, which may be graded by seriousness.

For absence and late coming, a typical path is:

• an informal discussion about the reasons
• a recorded verbal warning
• a written warning
• a final written warning
• dismissal for a further offence while the final warning is still valid

Each warning must be live under the employer's code when the next step is taken. Our guide on verbal, written and final warnings explains how long they usually last, and the guide on written warnings explains why relying on an expired warning often sinks an employer's case.

Records matter on both sides. An employer relying on late coming should be able to produce clock-in data, registers or signed time sheets for each date, not a manager's general impression that you are "always late". If the records are missing or unreliable, or show that others arrived just as late without consequence, the charge is weak. Keep your own record too: a photo of a taxi rank notice, a message to your supervisor, or a note of the date and reason each time you were held up.

Small employers are not held to the same formality. Item 3 of the Code says small businesses should not be expected to follow procedures that are not practical for them, and item 6 allows smaller employers a less formal approach to discipline. But even a small employer must make the rule clear and give a genuine warning before dismissing for lateness.

Good practice also means asking why. Late coming caused by childcare problems, unreliable transport or a health condition may be better solved by adjusting hours than by warnings, and an employer that never asked will look worse at the CCMA.

When dismissal is fair

Under item 7 of the 2025 Code, dismissal is fair for serious misconduct that makes the employment relationship intolerable, which may be a single instance or repeated misconduct after graduated measures have been tried. Item 9 lists factors, including the nature of the job, the seriousness of the misconduct and its effect on the business, whether progressive discipline might prevent a repeat, and the employee's length of service and record.

Applied to absence:

• persistent absenteeism or late coming after a valid final written warning will often justify dismissal
• a single day's unauthorised absence normally does not
• a long unexplained absence of a week or more, especially without any contact, may justify dismissal for a first offence, depending on the reasons
• absence at a critical time, such as a shift in an essential service or a planned stock-take, is more serious
• a false sick note is dishonesty, which can justify dismissal on its own

A fair procedure is still required. Our guide on whether you can be fired without a disciplinary hearing explains what that means and when it can be shortened.

Absence because of illness

Genuine illness is not misconduct. Section 22 of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act 75 of 1997 gives you paid sick leave in each three-year cycle equal to the days you would normally work in six weeks, which is 30 days for a five-day week. The sick leave calculator works out your entitlement.

Under section 23, your employer may require a medical certificate if you are absent for more than two consecutive days, or if you are absent on more than two occasions in an eight-week period. Without one in those cases, the employer does not have to pay for the absence. Failing to provide a certificate when one is required is not automatically misconduct, but failing to notify the employer, or producing a false one, can be.

When illness-related absence becomes frequent or long, the employer must use the incapacity route, not the disciplinary one. Item 21 of the 2025 Code requires the employer to investigate the extent of the incapacity, consider alternatives short of dismissal, and give you an opportunity to state your case with a fellow employee or union representative. Our guide on being dismissed for being off sick explains that process, and the guide on incapacity versus misconduct explains why charging illness as misconduct usually makes a dismissal unfair.

Other leave matters too. Absence for a child's illness or a family death may be covered by family responsibility leave, and absence for the birth or adoption of a child is now governed by the parental leave rules.

No work, no pay

The employment relationship is an exchange: work for pay. Where you are absent without leave, or late, your employer is not obliged to pay you for the time you did not work. This is known as "no work, no pay". It applies to unauthorised absence and lateness, not to paid sick leave, annual leave or family responsibility leave you were entitled to take.

There is a limit. Not paying for the actual time lost is not a deduction. Docking more than that, such as a full day's pay for being 20 minutes late, or a fixed "penalty", is a deduction. Section 34 of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act allows deductions only with your written consent to a specific debt, or where a law, collective agreement, court order or arbitration award permits it. Our guide on what can be deducted from your salary explains the rules.

Desertion and long absences

Desertion is a particular kind of absence: you have left with the intention of not coming back. It is different from being AWOL, because the employer must show that you intended to abandon the job. Even then, ending the employment is a dismissal that must be fair, and a contract clause saying that you are "deemed to have resigned" after a set number of days does not avoid that. Our guide on desertion explains the process, including when a hearing may go ahead in your absence.

If you cannot get to work, tell your employer as soon as possible, by any means, and keep proof. That one step separates an absence that can be explained from one that looks like desertion.

Worked example

This example is illustrative. Sipho works as a machine operator at a Pietermaritzburg factory and earns R9 800 a month. The company's code gives verbal warnings three months' validity, written warnings six and final written warnings twelve.

Over eight months Sipho is absent without notice on four Mondays. He receives a verbal warning, then a written warning, then a final written warning, each after a short meeting where he gives no explanation. Two months after the final warning, he is absent on another Monday without calling in. After a hearing, he is dismissed. His employer has also not paid him for the five Mondays.

The dismissal is likely to be fair. The warnings were live, the rule was known, and progressive discipline did not work. Withholding pay for the days he did not work is lawful. Had the employer also docked a further R500 as a "penalty" each time, those deductions would be unlawful.

Change the facts: at the hearing Sipho produces medical certificates for three of the Mondays and explains that he has a seizure condition that flares at weekends. The case is now about incapacity, not misconduct. The employer must investigate his condition and consider adjustments, and a dismissal for absenteeism would very likely be unfair, although his failure to notify on time could still justify a warning.

What to do

1. If you will be absent or late, tell your employer before your start time, in the way the code requires, and keep proof.
2. Get a medical certificate when you are ill, especially for absences of more than two days.
3. If you receive a warning, ask for it in writing and note its expiry date.
4. If your absences have an underlying cause, such as illness, childcare or transport, raise it early and ask for an adjustment.
5. If you are dismissed, refer the dispute to the CCMA within 30 days. Our guide on referring an unfair dismissal explains how.