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
Recent Competition Tribunal Case clarifies approach to ownership conditions in South African merger approvals
by Pieter Steyn, Director In a recent case, the Competition Tribunal clarified its approach regarding the imposition of conditions for [...]
Proposed New Capital Flow Management Regulations fail to live up to expectations
by Kyle Fyfe, Director On 17 April 2026, National Treasury and the South African Reserve Bank published the long awaited [...]
Understanding the 1 May 2026 BCEA Earnings Threshold Adjustment: Implications for employers and employees
by Banky Sono, Director, Dakalo Singo, Head of Pro Bono, Neo Sewela, Director and Sandile Mogweng, Candidate Attorney The Minister [...]
The Banks Win on Appeal: SCA Overturns R704 Million High Court Judgment
by Tshegofatso Matlou, Associate, reviewed by Jones Antunes, Director In the decision of African Banking Corporation of Zambia Limited and [...]
Out with the Old: South Africa’s Proposed Overhaul of Exchange Controls and the Inclusion of Crypto Assets
by Janice Geel, Associate and Azraa Sidat, Candidate Attorney, reviewed by Natalie Scott, Director and Head of Sustainability On 17 [...]
Do not call me I’ll call you …… South Africa’s 2026 CPA Amendment Regulations: operationalising the national opt‑out regime for direct marketing and shifting day‑to‑day anti‑spam responsibility to the National Consumer Commission
by Ahmore Burger-Smidt, Director and Head of Regulatory The Consumer Protection Act Amendment Regulations, 2026 deliver the long‑awaited operational framework [...]
