INTERNAL RIVALRY HARASSMENT ESCALATION

Meaning and Legal Context

Internal rivalry harassment escalation occurs when ordinary workplace competition, interpersonal conflict or professional rivalry develops into repeated intimidation, humiliation, exclusion, sabotage, victimisation or bullying. Rivalry itself is not unlawful. Employees may legitimately compete for promotion, recognition, clients, performance rewards or managerial responsibility. The legal problem arises when competitive conduct crosses into harassment or unfair discrimination and begins to impair another employee’s dignity, safety, psychological well-being or ability to work.

South African law addresses such conduct principally through the Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998 (EEA), the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 and the Code of Good Practice on the Prevention and Elimination of Harassment in the Workplace, 2022. The Code expressly recognises that workplace bullying may be an escalating process in which a person becomes the target of systematic negative social conduct.

When Rivalry Becomes Harassment

Not every disagreement, criticism or strained working relationship constitutes harassment. Managers may legitimately enforce standards, investigate misconduct and criticise poor performance. Similarly, employees may disagree strongly about professional matters.

However, rivalry may become unlawful harassment where conduct involves persistent insults, malicious rumours, deliberate exclusion, professional isolation, intimidation, withholding information, sabotaging work, misuse of disciplinary procedures or conduct designed to undermine another employee’s career.

The 2022 Code specifically recognises conduct such as malicious rumour-spreading, humiliation, withholding work information, sabotaging performance, ostracism, threats, unjustified disciplinary measures and deliberate professional isolation as potential forms of harassment.

Horizontal and Vertical Harassment

Internal rivalry frequently produces horizontal harassment, meaning harassment between employees of approximately equal organisational status. By contrast, vertical harassment arises where managerial or supervisory power is used against a subordinate.

The legal distinction matters because rivalry may become particularly serious when one employee obtains control over performance assessments, promotions, workloads, information or disciplinary processes and then uses those powers against a rival. The Code recognises both horizontal and vertical forms of harassment.

Employer's Duty to Prevent Escalation

Section 60 of the Employment Equity Act can expose an employer to liability where prohibited conduct is reported and the employer fails to take the necessary steps to eliminate it.

Once an allegation of harassment is brought to an employer's attention, the employer should consult relevant parties, investigate appropriately and take reasonable measures to stop further misconduct. Government guidance confirms that failure to take adequate steps may result in employer liability under section 60.

Employers should therefore intervene before rivalry escalates into a hostile working environment through grievance procedures, mediation, disciplinary action, reporting structures and anti-harassment policies.

Case Law

Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd v Makuleni [2021] ZALCJHB 309

Facts: The dispute concerned alleged workplace misconduct and bullying within an employment relationship, requiring the Labour Court to consider the nature and consequences of workplace harassment.

Legal Issue: How workplace bullying and hostile conduct should be understood within South African labour law.

Judgment: The Labour Court discussed bullying as persistent and unwelcome hostile or offensive conduct capable of creating an intimidating or degrading workplace environment.

Legal Principle/Ratio: Workplace bullying may undermine dignity, employment security, professional confidence and psychological well-being even where conduct is not physical.

Significance: The case is important for internal rivalry because repeated competitive hostility can become actionable where it creates a hostile work environment rather than remaining ordinary workplace disagreement.

Mediclinic Nelspruit (Pty) Ltd v Shiba and Others [2025] ZALCJHB 218

Facts: An employee engaged in persistent and unwelcome conduct toward a colleague despite management instructions requiring the conduct and communication to cease. A protection order had also become relevant.

Legal Issue: Whether dismissal for harassment and continued defiance of workplace directives was justified.

Judgment: The Labour Court set aside an arbitration award that had found the dismissal unfair, holding that the commissioner had materially misapprehended the seriousness of the conduct.

Legal Principle/Ratio: Persistent harassment of a colleague, particularly after explicit directions to stop, may constitute sufficiently serious misconduct to justify dismissal.

Significance: The case illustrates how an unresolved interpersonal conflict can escalate from workplace friction into serious disciplinary misconduct.

Mqaka v Howitz N.O. and Others [2026] ZALCJHB 156

Facts: An employee was accused of bullying employees and creating hostility between management and staff.

Legal Issue: Whether sufficient evidence existed to establish that the employee had actually engaged in bullying.

Judgment: The Labour Court found the evidence inadequate to sustain the bullying finding and set aside the relevant arbitration award.

Legal Principle/Ratio: Allegations of bullying require proper evidence. A stern management style, professional disagreement or workplace unpopularity does not automatically amount to harassment.

Significance: This decision creates an important safeguard in rivalry cases: harassment procedures cannot themselves become weapons in an internal power struggle. Objective evidence and procedural fairness remain essential.

Preventive Governance

Organisations should distinguish legitimate competition from prohibited harassment through clear policies, impartial investigations and documented escalation procedures. Managers should identify patterns of gossip, exclusion, sabotage, repeated complaints and retaliatory conduct before workplace relationships deteriorate further.

The law therefore requires a balanced approach: genuine harassment must be addressed decisively, while accusations arising from ordinary disagreement must be objectively tested.

Conclusion

Internal rivalry becomes a legal concern when competition evolves into persistent intimidation, humiliation, retaliation, exclusion, sabotage or misuse of organisational power. South African employment law recognises that bullying can escalate progressively and seriously damage workplace dignity and performance. Employers must respond reasonably once harassment is reported, but disciplinary conclusions must also rest on reliable evidence and fair procedures. Effective regulation therefore combines early intervention, impartial investigation, proportional discipline and protection against both genuine harassment and unsupported accusations.