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
Is length of service reason to pay different salaries to employees performing the same functions?
Pioneer Foods (Pty) Ltd v Workers Against Regression (WAR) & others ISSUE Whether length of service is a [...]
Is a trade union entitled to organisational rights in terms of the LRA after acquiring majority representation at a single branch?
Professional Transport and Allied Workers Union obo members / Professional Aviation Services [2016] 4 BALR 421 ISSUE Whether a [...]
Asset for share transactions – beware of selling your shares within 18 months especially in the context of a share buy-back
To prevent tax considerations from discouraging the incorporation of a business, a specific form of ‘rollover relief’ is available when an asset [...]
A new era dawns – criminalisation of cartel conduct
On 22 April 2016, a Presidential Proclamation (“Proclamation”) appeared in the Government Gazette which confirmed that the provisions contained in [...]
The employer’s responsibility during the transfer of an employee
Senne and others v Fleet Africa [2016] ZALCJHB 48 ISSUE One of the automatic consequences of a transfer in [...]
Contracts of temporary employment services employees
National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa obo Nkala and others v Durpo Workforce Solutions [2016] 3 BALR 229 (MEIBC) ISSUE [...]
