Table of Contents
Key Points:
- Dis-Chem, owned by South Africa’s billionaire Saltzman family, dismissed a cancer survivor who couldn’t meet job demands.
- The CCMA upheld Dis-Chem’s decision, sparking debate on corporate responsibility and the treatment of employees with severe health issues.
- The Casual Workers Advice Office condemned Dis-Chem’s actions, criticizing the company’s failure to find a suitable role for the employee.
The Casual Workers Advice Office has strongly criticized the recent ruling by the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation, and Arbitration (CCMA), which upheld Dis-Chem’s dismissal of an employee unable to meet the physical demands of her role due to cancer treatment. The decision, favoring the Saltzman family-led company, has drawn sharp condemnation.
Refilwe Matinketsa, who had been employed as a picker at Dis-Chem since March 2019, was dismissed in April 2024 after it was determined that her medical condition prevented her from fulfilling her job requirements.
Matinketsa’s battle with cancer left her needing a stoma, a small bag used to collect bodily waste, which meant she could no longer lift heavy items—a key part of her role.
Dis-Chem’s handling of employee health issues raises ethical questions
“This pharmacy giant, with 319 stores across South Africa, Namibia, and Botswana, and total assets amounting to R10.7 billion ($593 million), has refused to find a permanent light-duty job for a female cancer survivor, even after years of loyal service,” the Casual Workers Advice Office stated in a scathing critique.
Dis-Chem, nearly 50 years old and often positioned as South Africa’s leading pharmacy chain, has come under fire for its handling of the situation, which raises critical questions about corporate responsibility and the treatment of employees with serious health conditions.
In 2022, Matinketsa’s health issues related to cancer led to frequent absences and a temporary disability, but she eventually went into remission. Her line manager, Pule Moeketsi, initially cleared her to return to her role as a picker.
However, in December, her stoma bag made it impossible to complete her shifts, leading to her reassignment to a packer role. This position, which involved working from 6 PM to 10 PM, soon became redundant due to a lack of tasks during the later hours, and Dis-Chem could not offer her another suitable position.
As part of its Section 189 process, Dis-Chem argued that it had explored all alternatives, including the possibility of a cashier role, but this option was not viable due to internal restructuring. Ultimately, Dis-Chem’s decision to dismiss Matinketsa was based on the prognosis that she could no longer perform her duties.
“The evidence is clear on both her own version and the doctor’s prognosis that she could not perform the duties of a picker any longer,” said Commissioner Johan Stapelberg. “She was not even able to perform her light duties and confirmed she was unable to meet the targets.”
He further added that Dis-Chem had accommodated the employee for as long as possible, but the company’s shrinking workforce and Matinketsa’s inability to fulfill her role made the dismissal reasonable.
Dis-Chem has defended its actions, stating that it “followed all protocols and procedures to accommodate” Matinketsa. However, this case has sparked a broader debate on how large corporations manage employees facing severe health challenges, especially in industries where the physical demands of the job are high.
The Casual Workers Advice Office’s condemnation of Dis-Chem highlights the ethical dilemmas faced by companies balancing operational needs with employee welfare. As Africa’s business landscape evolves, such cases may set important precedents for how companies approach the intersection of health, disability, and employment rights.
