The bargaining council found the department of social development failed to prove that the outspoken spokesperson brought it into disrepute and ordered her reinstatement with 12 months’ back pay
The Public Health and Social Development Sectoral Bargaining Council has ordered that outspoken department of social development spokesperson Lumka Oliphant be reinstated.
The ruling marks a significant development in Oliphant’s acrimonious public dispute with former social development minister Sisi Tolashe, whom President Cyril Ramaphosa removed from Cabinet in May 2026.
Oliphant was dismissed in October 2025 after a disciplinary process in which the department accused her of misconduct, including bringing it into disrepute.
Her suspension came shortly after media reports about Tolashe’s R3 million New York trip, which Oliphant was accused of leaking to journalists, an allegation she denied.
In its ruling on Tuesday, the council found Oliphant’s dismissal to be procedurally and substantively unfair under section 188 of the Labour Relations Act.
Ordering Oliphant to report to work on 1 November, the bargaining council instructed
the department to reinstate her retrospectively from the date of the dismissal to the date of this award, “on the same terms and conditions of employment that applied as at the date of her dismissal and without loss of benefits”.
The department has been further ordered to pay Oliphant a back pay equivalent to
12 months’ remuneration, calculated as R1 535 516.04.
The back pay is to be paid in two instalments: R767 758.02 by 15 November 2026 and R767 758.02 by 15 December 2026.
The council found that the department had failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that Oliphant had brought it into disrepute.
The employer “must show conduct that lowered the department in the estimation of right-thinking members of the public or was reasonably likely to do so”.
“Public criticism of a department’s actions, however robust, does not in itself meet that standard.
“A general assertion that the applicant’s media engagement caused reputational concern — without isolating the offending statements or showing how they affected the department’s standing — does not discharge the onus,” the council said.