In the digital age, we’re all just one mis-swipe away from a potentially career-ending blunder

Imagine this: it’s a lazy Sunday afternoon. You’re scrolling through your phone when suddenly you realise you’ve just sent an explicit image to your work’s alumni group chat. Your stomach drops. Your career flashes before your eyes. Welcome to the digital age, where a single mistaken tap can turn your professional life upside down.

This isn’t a hypothetical scenario. It’s the real-life nightmare that befell Lwandile Lwazi Zibi, an account executive at the University of Fort Hare. His accidental share of an inappropriate pornographic image to a WhatsApp group of 181 alumni, including the university’s chancellor, led to his dismissal.

But in a twist that’s raising eyebrows across the legal and HR landscape, the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) recently ruled his dismissal unfair.

The CCMA’s decision in the case of NUFBWSAW and CCMA (Case no ECEL4962-23) has sent shockwaves through the South African legal community, forcing us to confront the complex interplay between personal conduct, professional responsibilities, and the ever-blurring lines of our digital lives.

At the heart of this case lies a series of legal determinations that merit close examination. The CCMA’s ruling hinged on three key points: the question of sexual harassment; the allegation of gross negligence; and the claim that Zibi had brought the university into disrepute.

On the matter of sexual harassment, the CCMA took a surprisingly narrow view. They noted that no formal complaint of sexual harassment had been lodged against Zibi.

This interpretation raises serious questions about our understanding of workplace harassment in the digital age. Must we wait for a formal complaint when inappropriate content is broadcast to a professional group? The decision seems to ignore the potential for creating a hostile work environment, even if unintentionally.

The CCMA relied heavily on the case of V v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (Prasa), which held that “where a clear accident had happened, it is inappropriate... to take advantage of the accident and flag the serious form of misconduct”.

While this principle has merit, its application in Zibi’s case may be questionable. The Prasa case involved a one-to-one accidental sending, not a group chat with professional implications.

Regarding gross negligence, the CCMA found no evidence of a standard set by the employer regarding social media use from which Zibi had deviated — gross negligence as requiring a departure from the standard of the reasonable person to such an extent that it may properly be categorised as extreme. The CCMA concluded that Zibi’s actions did not meet this threshold.



This interpretation, while legally sound, raises questions about the evolving standards of professional conduct in the digital age. Should we not expect a higher standard of care from employees when it comes to digital communications, especially those in public-facing roles?

On the charge of bringing the university into disrepute, the CCMA found no concrete evidence of harm to the university’s reputation. The CCMA referenced Lucerne Transport v TAWUSA and others, which requires employers to show a “sufficiently close link between the misconduct and the business” and that the impact on the employer’s business must be “sufficiently serious”.

While this legal principle is well established, its application in the digital age may need reconsideration. In an era where reputational damage can occur swiftly and virally, should we not take a more proactive stance on potential harm?

The CCMA’s decision to reinstate Zibi with full back pay seems generous given the nature of the misconduct. A more balanced approach might have acknowledged the unintentional nature of the act while still recognising its potential for harm in a professional setting. This could have led to a more nuanced remedy, perhaps involving reinstatement but with some form of disciplinary action or mandatory training.

Beyond these specific legal points, the case opens up a Pandora’s box of questions about the intersection of personal and professional life in our hyper-connected world.

First and foremost, it challenges our understanding of what constitutes a “workplace” in the digital age. The WhatsApp group, while not an official university platform, was used for professional networking. This blurs the line between personal social media use and professional communication. How do we define the boundaries of the workplace when our professional networks are just a tap away on our personal devices?

The timing of Zibi’s actions — on a Sunday afternoon, technically off duty — further complicates matters. In an era where we’re always a notification away from work, can we truly separate our professional and personal digital lives?

This case forces us to confront the extent to which employers can regulate or discipline employees for actions taken outside of work hours, especially when they affect work-related groups or contacts.

Accidental breaches of professionalism

Responsibility of employees in public-facing roles