When Reinstatement Is a Bridge Too Far: CCI Call Centres v Pinn and the 'Intolerable' Exception

Legal Reference

CCI Call Centres (Pty) Ltd v Pinn (DA7/2024) [2025] ZALAC 24 (17 April 2025) — The Labour Appeal Court (LAC) set aside the Labour Court and held that reinstatement was inappropriate where the employment relationship had become objectively intolerable.

LRA s 193(2) — A commissioner must not order reinstatement where (among other grounds) the employment relationship would be intolerable or the order would be not reasonably practicable. (CCI v Pinn applies these principles.)

What the LAC Clarified

Focus is on objective intolerability

The question is not merely whether relations are strained, but whether continued employment is intolerable on the evidence.

Review standard remains "reasonableness"

The LAC emphasised the Sidumo-style test on review (did the commissioner's decision fall within a band of reasonableness), not whether a judge would have reached a different outcome.

Pre- and post-dismissal conduct may count

Conduct such as refusing to cooperate in investigations, unfounded accusations and breakdowns with line management can render reinstatement inappropriate.

Practical Application for HR/ER

When opposing reinstatement, ensure the arbitration or court record contains:

• Specific incidents showing collapse of trust (dates, persons, emails, investigation notes)
• Operational context: size of team, sensitivity of role (cash, confidential data, client-facing)
• Efforts to repair: coaching, mediation attempts, redeployment exploration—showing that lesser measures would not restore trust

When considering remedies, remember the LRA hierarchy: reinstatement is primary unless s 193(2) exceptions apply; compensation may be the just remedy where intolerability is proved. For a fuller walkthrough of arbitration and remedies at the CCMA, including how commissioners weigh these exceptions, see our employer guide.

Evidence Pack Checklist (for Arbitration/Review)

• Charge sheet and investigation record (incl. refusal/non-cooperation episodes)
• Witness statements (line manager, HR, affected colleagues)
• Contemporaneous correspondence evidencing accusations or insubordination
• Records of trust-repair attempts (warnings, mediation, PIP where relevant)
• Role-risk memorandum (why continued employment endangers operations/trust)

Drafting Tip: Remedy Submissions

When arguing remedy, include a structured s 193(2) submission:

"On the undisputed facts at paras X–Y of the record, any continued employment would be objectively intolerable because [reasons]. The commissioner must not order reinstatement (s 193(2)(b)); compensation is the appropriate remedy."

Policy Note

Update internal disciplinary outcome guidelines to require an explicit intolerability assessment before proposing reinstatement in settlement or remedy discussions. Cross-reference CCI v Pinn.

Compliance note: This guidance is procedural and educational. It does not replace formal legal advice.

Need labour relations support for a CCMA or Labour Court matter? Contact Smart Business Group for assistance.