Warning letter for refusing to do the 'Jerusalema' dance challenge is a no-no

Experts weigh in on social media debate

06 October 2020 - 14:12 By nivashni nair
subscribe Just R20 for the first month. Support independent journalism by subscribing to our digital news package.
Subscribe now
In this screengrab from the official 'Jerusalema' music video, Nomcebo Zikode and Master KG can be seen dancing along to their hit track. Millions around the world have taken up the challenge to dance to the song.
In this screengrab from the official 'Jerusalema' music video, Nomcebo Zikode and Master KG can be seen dancing along to their hit track. Millions around the world have taken up the challenge to dance to the song.
Image: Openmic Productions/YouTube

Can your company issue you a warning letter for refusing to participate in the Jerusalema dance challenge? That's the topic of a raging debate in a private Facebook group that helps users with legal advice.

A social media user claimed his friend working for a private company received a warning letter because she refused to participate in the challenge two weeks ago. The employee didn't want to take part in the company dance off because she is shy and felt uncomfortable.

While some argued that participating in the dance craze was part of team building, others said it is insubordination to refuse to follow an instruction.

However, employment attorney Dunstan Farrell told TimesLIVE employees are entitled to refuse to participate in the challenge that is taking the world by storm.

"My initial comment is that this particular workplace appears to be very toxic," Farrell said.

"My personal experience over the past few months since the Jerusalema trend started has been one of optimism, hope, joy and happiness. To turn it into the negative, as this employer and its employees have done, is extremely disappointing and not within the Jerusalema spirit.

The instruction to participate in such a dance routine is in the circumstances unlawful and unenforceable.

"Dance routines do not generally fall within the job description of employees, and in those circumstances employees are entitled to refuse to practice and participate in a dance routine like Jerusalema.

"The instruction to participate in such a dance routine is in the circumstances unlawful and unenforceable, and would not amount to insubordination, gross insubordination or refusal to carry out a lawful instruction."

He said it was disappointing when a workplace "deteriorates to such a level of toxicity".

"Particularly keeping in mind that we spend more awake time in the workplace than we do with our friends and family."

Employee buy-in essential

Prof Alewyn Nel, head of the University of Pretoria's department of human resource management, said managers were not always sensitive to the plights of their employees and did not know how to create an inclusive culture.

"The first step is to understand your employees and listen to their ideas and concerns. Forcing a social activity like this, and making it compulsory in the organisation, is not conducive to build an inclusive culture and to let your employees feel heard and valued," he said.

"The question becomes: is this team-building when you force people to participate? For team building to be optimal, you need the buy-in of your employees. You can't enforce any activities onto anyone in the organisation without a real rationalisation and clarification of the importance of such an activity and link it to their work performance.

"The Jerusalema challenge has little to do with work-related outcomes (developing skills) and could rather be used to build team cohesion in the organisation. You can encourage your employees to participate or ask for volunteers and rationalise the importance of such an activity as part of team cohesion building, but you can not enforce such an activity on employees."

Nel said forcing staff to participate was bad management practice and an indication of how out of touch a manager is with current employees.

"From a labour relations perspective, issuing warning letters to employees for not participating in a social activity, without a clear rationalisation of the importance of such activity towards their work performance, goes against fair labour relations practices.

"Warning letters are issued as step 2 in a disciplinary procedure and usually come after a verbal warning that is valid for three months.

"It does not sound like the company followed the correct labour relations practices in issuing a warning letters. The employee should rather try to handle it in-house with their HR department. If that is not possible, a case can be opened at the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA)."

TimesLIVE


subscribe Just R20 for the first month. Support independent journalism by subscribing to our digital news package.
Subscribe now