Employee gone missing? Absence is not automatically desertion.

An employee does not report for duty. Calls go unanswered. After a few days, the manager says: “They have deserted. Terminate them.” That reaction is understandable—but it can be legally risky if the employer has not established what the absence means.

Absence, abscondment and desertion are not identical

South African labour jurisprudence distinguishes between absence without permission and desertion. The Labour Court has described desertion as involving an intention not to return to work. Abscondment may be inferred from an unexplained absence of sufficient duration, but the circumstances remain important.

That is why a policy that simply says “five days absent equals automatic dismissal” should not replace a genuine assessment of what happened. A policy can create a trigger for action, but the employer should still test the facts and fairness of the termination.

What should the employer do first?

1. Confirm the absence. Check rosters, leave records, approved arrangements and whether the employee may have notified someone else.
2. Try to contact the employee. Use the reasonable contact information available: phone, WhatsApp, email and any emergency contact permitted by the employer's processes.
3. Record the attempts. Keep a simple chronology of calls, messages and letters.
4. Tell the employee what is required. Where contact is possible, require the employee to report for duty or provide an explanation by a reasonable deadline.
5. Assess the explanation. Illness, detention, family emergency, transport disruption and a deliberate abandonment of employment are not the same thing.
6. Use a fair process. If misconduct is alleged, the employee should ordinarily be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to the allegation.

What if the employee cannot be reached?

An employer cannot manufacture participation that is impossible. But it can show that it acted reasonably. A well-documented process should demonstrate that the employer used the contact details available, explained the consequences of continued absence where possible and allowed a reasonable opportunity for the employee to return or make representations.

If the employee later reappears, the reason for the absence and any evidence of an intention to return become highly relevant. The employer should avoid assuming that mere silence proves an intention never to return.

Abscondment may also hide an incapacity problem

Not every prolonged absence is misconduct. The current Code of Good Practice: Dismissal expressly recognises that incapacity can arise from ill health, injury and even other factors preventing an employee from performing the job. Where the employee is genuinely unable to work, an incapacity process may be more appropriate than a misconduct process.

Build a policy that creates action—not automatic assumptions

A useful absence or abscondment policy should define reporting requirements, escalation steps, contact attempts, return-to-work expectations and the process that may follow unexplained absence. The aim should be consistency and evidence, not an automatic termination formula.

The safest question is not “How many days?”

The better question is: what evidence do we have about the employee’s absence, intention, communication and the fairness of the process? That is what turns an emotionally frustrating absence into a defensible employer decision.