Job Descriptions and Additional Duties
Jan du Toit
On a fairly regular basis, inquiries are received from the employers regarding the issue of whether or not an
employee is obliged to carry out tasks or duties which are not stipulated in his job description. Employers find that
usually when issuing such an instruction to an employee, it is met with the retort “it is not in my job description.”
Thus the question arises - should job descriptions then preferably to be made intentionally general to try and avoid
this type of problem arising?
This question was addressed in a private arbitration in East London, in the matter of SATAWU / Auto Carriers (East
London branch) [2—7] 5 BALR 493 9P.
The respondent was engaged in the business of transporting new motor vehicles from that motor vehicle
manufacturing plants to motor dealerships. The transportation was done by means of specially constructed
“double-decker” heavy-duty carrier vehicles, on which the new motor cars were parked and secured. Carrying
perhaps 10 or more motor cars these vehicles were driven by “carrier drivers” from the factory to the dealership. In
other cases, the new motor cars were driven on their own wheels to the dealership by “convoy drivers”.
The dispute arose where there were no carriers to be driven, and the carrier drivers were requested to act as
convoy drivers. The carrier drivers refused, and were supported by SATAWU in this refusal, who contended that
the carrier driver’s duties were restricted to loading and driving the carrier rigs.
The respondent maintained that such an instruction (to act as convoy drivers) was reasonable and lawful, and that
the carrier drivers had no right to refuse on the grounds that it was not stated in the job description.
The question that the arbitrator was requested to decide was whether, under all circumstances, it was reasonable
to instruct carrier drivers to do convoy work when their carriers were not available.
The arbitrator stated that the answer to this question, whether an employer may instruct an employee to perform
tasks allegedly falling outside of his job description depends on:

the terms and/or conditions of the employee's contract,

the nature of the task to be performed,

the circumstances in which the instruction is given, and

the employer's operational requirements.
The union relied on a document which listed the duties and tasks of the carrier driver and acting as a convoy driver
was not listed among these tasks.
To cut a long story short, the respondent stated that this list of duties was compiled during a job grading exercise
and was intended for use only as a guide for determining appropriate wage rates for each job description. It was
never intended to constitute a comprehensive and exhaustive job description. The union challenged the respondent
to produce the minutes of the relevant meeting of the job grading committee but apart from that they called no
witnesses to refute his evidence in this regard.
The arbitrator accepted the version of the respondent, stating that the document lacked contractual force.
Furthermore, in the bundle of documents submitted, the arbitrator found evidence that in the past, carrier drivers
had customarily been requested to perform convoy work, and that they had, in fact, done so.
The arbitrator pointed out that in A Mauchie (Pty) Ltd t/a Precision Tools v NUMSA & others (1995) 16 ILJ 1 (LAC),
the Labour Appeal Court found that ”employees do not have a vested the right to preserve their working obligations
completely unchanged from the moment they are appointed”.
The arbitrator then referred to the Employee Handbook, issued by the employer to all employees.
This Handbook stated that “employees shall obey the legitimate instruction of the supervision of any employee in
authority over them” and also “should a grievance be felt with regard to the instruction, representation may be
made to supervision or higher authority, but in the first instance the instruction shall be obeyed".
Thus it was clear that employees did have a very specific procedure to follow in such instances and no excuse
could be accepted in the instance of a blank refusal to carry out the instruction.
There was a clear procedure to be followed in cases of dissatisfaction with any instruction issued. The arbitrator
could not find any evidence to show that the instruction was unreasonable in any way.
Finally, the arbitrator found that the employer is entitled to instruct carrier workers to drive new vehicles when they
are unable to perform their normal duties when their carrier vehicles are not available, and that the carrier drivers
are obliged to do this when instructed to do so, and lastly that the carrier drivers were not entitled to refuse to carry
out such an instruction on the grounds that it was not stated in the job description.
Page 1 of 2
Having regard to the 4 items to be considered (stated above), employers would be wise to ensure that a job
description should state specifically that the list of tasks or duties and responsibilities is not exhaustive, and that the
employer is entitled to instruct the employee at any time to carry out additional duties or responsibilities, which fall
reasonably within the ambit of the job description, or in accordance with operational requirements.
Furthermore, it would seem prudent to include a clause such as “should a grievance be felt with regard to any
instruction issued, representation may be made to supervision or higher authority by means of the grievance
procedure, but in the first instance the instruction shall be obeyed."
Employees should realise that, as mentioned in A Mauchie (Pty) Ltd t/a Predcision Tools v NUMSA & others (1995)
16 ILJ 1 (LAC), the job description is not cast in stone or moulded in steel, and that employees cannot hold an
expectation that a job description, once issued, can never be changed. Job descriptions will change constantly as a
result of inter alia technology, legislation and the policies of the company.
Thus, the job description (or preferably the employment contract) should also include a provision stating that the
functions and responsibilities listed in the job description may be changed at any time, depending upon the
operational requirements of the employer, and within the parameters of the post held by the employee.
There had been other cases where, in order to increase productivity, an employer instructed employees to operate
two machines instead of one machine. A dispute arose, but it was ruled that the instruction was not unreasonable,
that it fell reasonably within the ambit of the duties of the post for which the employees were employed, and that
they were fully capable of operating two machines instead of one.
Employers must be careful not to rush out and make changes to job descriptions, this article does not mean we can
now change anything, or instruct employees to do anything without having the right to object. Major drastic
changes to job descriptions must be negotiated and done in fair manner.
Important Facts
1. Job descriptions are not comprehensive and employees must be made aware of that by inserting such a
condition in the employment contract or job description. It should further state that the employee:

agrees to perform other duties outside of the ambit of his / her position as and when required to do so

shall first adhere to and perform the instruction before lodging a grievance if he / she believes that the
instruction was invalid. There may be exceptions to this rule but in general the policy of the company must
be that the work is first done before complaining about it
2. Job descriptions must be updated annually or if major changes are made to it
3. Get your employees to sign their job descriptions
4. A job description will change constantly as a result of the operational requirements of a company and
employees do not have a vested right to expect that their working obligations will remain unchanged from the
moment they are appointed
For more information please contact Jan du Toit at jand@labourguide.co.za
Page 2 of 2