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
South African Airways in Business Rescue – No retrenchments until the business rescue plan requires it
by Bradley Workman-Davies, Director and Neo Sewela, Candidate Attorney On 9 July 2020, the Labour Appeal Court ("Labour Appeal Court") [...]
Collection costs under the National Credit Act, 2005
by Tracy-Lee Janse van Rensburg, Director and Juliet Siwela, Candidate Attorney Collection costs In accordance with the judgment handed down [...]
BOOKING.COM and public perception
by Donvay Wegierski, Director The United States Supreme Court of Appeal has held that the US trade mark applications pending [...]
Constitutional Court clarifies when a contract and its enforcement will be invalid for being contrary to public policy
by Pieter Steyn, Director In a recent judgement involving Beadica 231 CC and others and the Oregon Trust, Sale’s Hire [...]
Conduct standard for banks
by Tracy-Lee Janse van Rensburg, Director Pursuant to the Financial Sector Regulation Act, 2018 ("FSRA"), the Financial Sector Conduct Authority ("FSCA") [...]
URGENT update: Amendments to regulations for lockdown level 3
by Jacques van Wyk, Director; Andre van Heerden, Senior Associate; and Thabisa Yantolo, Candidate Attorney On 31 July 2020 the [...]
