Dr C J McGregor v The Department of Health, Western Cape and Others

The appellant, Dr C J McGregor, a 57-year-old specialist anaesthesiologist and head of department at George Hospital, was dismissed in December 2016 for sexual harassment of a 26-year-old female intern, Dr Smook, who worked under his supervision. The allegations arose mainly from an outreach trip to Riversdale, where they travelled together, stayed at the same guesthouse, and socialised. During the trip and shortly thereafter, the appellant allegedly made sexually suggestive comments, proposed an affair, touched the complainant’s upper thigh while driving, suggested she swim naked, commented repeatedly on her appearance, took photographs of her, and engaged in conduct the complainant experienced as unwelcome and inappropriate. A further allegation of inappropriate physical contact in theatre after their return formed a fourth charge. After a disciplinary enquiry, the appellant was found guilty on all four charges and dismissed. At arbitration, three charges were upheld, one was not proved, but the arbitrator found the dismissal substantively and procedurally unfair due to inconsistency with the treatment of another senior doctor. The Labour Court held the dismissal substantively fair but procedurally unfair. The appellant appealed to the Labour Appeal Court against the finding of substantive fairness and the refusal of reinstatement.

The appeal was dismissed with costs. The Labour Court’s order that the dismissal was substantively fair but procedurally unfair, together with the award of compensation, remained intact.

This case reinforces the strict approach of South African labour courts to sexual harassment, especially where there is a power imbalance between a supervisor and a junior employee. It clarifies that inconsistency in discipline requires a proper comparison of materially similar cases and that conduct must be assessed from the complainant’s perspective of whether it was unwelcome. The judgment underscores that senior employees bear a heightened duty to maintain professional boundaries and that dismissal may be justified for serious sexual harassment even in the absence of prior warnings.