Legal updates and opinions
News / News
Automatically unfair dismissals
ISSUE IN DISPUTE
If an employee does not adhere to the dress code in the workplace because of his religion, culture or gender and is then dismissed for failing to do so such a dismissal may be regarded as automatically unfair in terms of section 187 (1) (f) of the Labour Relations Act (“the LRA”). Section 187 (1) (f) of the LRA states that ‘a dismissal is automatically unfair if the employer, in dismissing the employee…unfairly discriminated against the employee, directly or indirectly, on any arbitrary ground, including but not limited to race, gender, sex, ethnic, or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, political opinion, culture, language, marital status or family responsibility’.
COURT’S DECISION
In Department of Correctional Services and another v Police and Civil Rights Union (POPCRU) and 5 others (107/12) [2013] ZASCA 40 (dated 28 March 2013) the Supreme Court of Appeal (“the SCA”) was called upon to consider whether the Respondents, who were all male correctional officers at Pollsmoor Prison in Cape Town employed by the Department of Correctional Services at the time of their dismissals, had been automatically unfairly dismissed on religious grounds. The employees all wore dreadlocks albeit for different reasons, contrary to the employer’s clear dress code prohibiting dreadlocks in the workplace. The employer requested them to cut their hair to comply with the department’s dress code, failing which they would be disciplined. The employees refused to comply. Some argued that their Rastafarian religion required them to wear dreadlocks while others argued that they were required to wear dreadlocks by their Xhosa culture. The employees were charged with breaching the employer’s disciplinary code and procedure and dress code by wearing dreadlocks on duty, alternatively, failing to carry out a lawful order or routine without just or reasonable excuse. Subsequent to a disciplinary enquiry they were dismissed.
The SCA held that the dismissals of the employees were automatically unfair as contemplated in section 187 (1) (f) of the LRA on the grounds of discrimination relating to gender, religion and culture. The Court held that a dress code policy is not justified if it discriminates between males and females or if it restricts a practice of religious belief or cultural belief where that belief or practice does not affect the employee’s ability to perform his duties, nor jeopardize the safety of the public or other employees nor cause undue hardship to the employer in a practical sense.
IMPORTANCE
In drafting and implementing policies and procedures within the workplace employers must ensure that they take adequate heed of employees’ rights not to be discriminated against on the basis of race, gender, sex, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, political opinion, culture, language, marital status and family responsibility. In the absence of a good reason justifying a provision in a policy which has the effect of discriminating against an employee such discrimination will be regarded as unfair and, in the instance of dismissal, will give rise to a claim for automatically unfair dismissal.
Latest News
Remuneration governance under the amended Companies Act: A closer look at some of the key questions
by Kevin Trudgeon, Director and Helena Stoop, Senior Knowledge Lawyer 1. Introduction On 22 May 2026, a proclamation by President [...]
Does the Public Procurement Act provide for an effective dispute resolution mechanism?
by Sarah Moerane, Director and Koketso Rapoo, Senior Associate The National Treasury published the draft General Public Procurement Regulations and [...]
The shift in the evaluation criteria in South African public procurement
By Sarah Moerane, Director and Amogelang Magano, Senior Associate South Africa is in the midst of what could prove to [...]
Mind the Conduct: A Guide to COFI – Part 5: Governance and Accountability
by Hilah Laskov, Director Introduction In this article series, we take a deep dive into the South African Conduct of [...]
Misuse of the business rescue process – failure before it begins
by Dr. Eric Levenstein, Director and Head of Insolvency & Business Rescue and Amy Mackechnie, Senior Associate Business rescue was introduced [...]
Constitutional Court clarifies rights of innocent contractors under invalid state contracts
by Sarah Moerane, Director and Kuhle Joja, Associate In Minister of Defence and Military Veterans v Zeal Health Innovations (Pty) [...]
