The Constitutional Court of South Africa has dismissed an application by Reynolds Maleka, who claimed he was forced to resign from his job at ADT Security after changes to his role.

The judgment, delivered on 24 February 2026, relates to a long running dispute about whether Maleka was constructively dismissed. This means he argued that his employer made his working conditions so difficult that he had no choice but to resign.

Maleka worked as an IT Director for ADT, which was owned by an international company, Tyco. He was part of the company’s executive team and reported to both local and international managers.

In late 2016, ADT announced changes ahead of its planned sale to Fidelity Security Group. As part of this process, a new financial director, Allen Quinn, was appointed. The company said Quinn would oversee the IT division. This meant Maleka would report to Quinn, who was on the same level as him in the company structure.

Maleka objected to this change. He said it reduced his authority and status and that he had not been consulted. After a short meeting with ADT’s managing director, who said the decision was final, Maleka resigned in March 2017.

He then took the matter to the Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration, claiming unfair dismissal and asking to be reinstated. The CCMA ruled against him. It found that the change in reporting lines did not affect his salary, title, or responsibilities. It also found that the company’s decision was reasonable given the upcoming sale.

Importantly, the CCMA said Maleka did not use internal grievance procedures before resigning. It ruled that he failed to prove that his working conditions were intolerable.

Maleka challenged this outcome in the Labour Court, which agreed with the CCMA. The court said he should have first used available processes to resolve his concerns. It also found that the changes to his role were not severe enough to justify resignation.

He then appealed to the Labour Appeal Court, which also dismissed his case. That court said his resignation was premature and that he had other options, such as raising a formal complaint or referring an unfair labour practice dispute.

Maleka then approached the Constitutional Court, arguing that the matter involved his right to fair labour practices under the law. He maintained that the changes to his role were effectively a demotion and made his job meaningless.

The majority of the Constitutional Court disagreed. It said the legal test for constructive dismissal is strict and requires clear proof that working conditions were unbearable.

The court found that Maleka’s dissatisfaction was based on a change that had not yet taken full effect. It said he resigned because he expected problems in the future, not because his situation had already become intolerable.

The court also stressed that employees should first try reasonable solutions, such as using grievance procedures, before resigning.

It concluded that Maleka did not meet the legal requirements to prove constructive dismissal and had no reasonable chance of success. His application was dismissed, and no costs order was made.

However, the decision was not unanimous. A minority of judges disagreed, saying Maleka had been treated unfairly. They found that the change undermined his role and dignity and effectively reduced his position to a title without real authority.

The minority judgment said the employer failed to properly justify the changes and that Maleka’s resignation was a last resort. It would have ruled in his favour and awarded compensation.

Despite this disagreement, the majority ruling stands, confirming that Maleka was not constructively dismissed under South African labour law.