Legal updates and opinions
News / News
The importance of the recognition of cultural beliefs in the workplace
Cultural beliefs in the workplace
Issue in dispute
Can an employee who has a genuine cultural belief that she should attend a training course unrelated to her work or suffer illness, even death, be dismissed for misconduct if her application for leave was rejected by her employer and she refused a direct instruction to return to work?
Summary – genuine cultural belief
An employee who has a genuine cultural belief that she should attend a course to be trained as a traditional healer in response to a calling from her ancestors and that failure to do so could result in illness, even death, is justified in being absent from work on the basis of being sick. An employer cannot discipline such an employee for misconduct, even if such employee disregarded a direct instruction to return to work and had no remaining leave available. However, in circumstances where the employee’s absence has a serious impact upon the employer’s business, the employer is entitled to institute incapacity proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995, as amended, (“LRA”).
Kievits Kroon Country Estate v Mmoledi (875/12) [2013] ZASCA 189
In the recent case of Kievits Kroon Country Estate v Mmoledi (875/12) [2013] ZASCA 189 (29 November 2013), the Supreme Court of Appeal had to address the above issue.
The employer, a company that offered conference and leisure facilities to its clients, dismissed the employee, a chef de partie, for misconduct as a result of her absenteeism from work and her failure to follow a direct instruction. The employee had exhausted her sick leave when she received a vision and calling from her ancestors that she attend a course on traditional healing for a period of three weeks. She approached her employer requesting leave. However, as the employer could not afford for the employee to be absent for a significant period of time, the employer agreed that she could take unpaid leave, but only for one week.
While on unpaid leave, the employee was contacted by her employer informing her that her application for further leave (in excess of the one week granted to her) had been denied. The employee indicated that she could not return to work and did not, in fact, return. The employee’s reason for non-attendance was that she truly believed that failure to attend the course could result in illness, even death. The employee also handed her employer a sick note from her traditional healer which expressed the need for the employee to attend the course. The employer nevertheless dismissed the employee for misconduct and insubordination.
The Supreme Court of Appeal, in upholding the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitrations (“CCMA”) and Labour Court’s decisions, found that the employee’s dismissal was unfair. The court emphasised the need to take into account the employee’s cultural beliefs and indicated that where it can be shown that the employee had a sincere and genuine belief that she had no option but to attend the course for fear of the consequences, she was justified in being absent and in refusing to comply with the employer’s instruction. In such circumstances, the failure of the employee to report for work could be said to be justifiable and reasonable.
The court did, however, caution that an employer is not expected to tolerate an employee’s prolonged absence from work and it may be fair, in certain circumstances, to terminate the employee’s employment by virtue of incapacity due to ill health.
Cultural values – the importance of the case
Cultural values must be taken into account in the workplace. However, employers will only be obliged to give credence to an employee’s beliefs as a valid excuse for disobeying an order or absenting him/herself from work, where it is clear that such a belief is genuine and sincere.
Even if the belief is sincere, the employer can still dismiss the employee for incapacity due to ill health; provided the procedures prescribed within the LRA are adhered to.
Latest News
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 [...]
Business Rescue Applications Under Scrutiny: business rescue orders are not there for the taking!
by Eric Levenstein, Director and Head Insolvency & Business Rescue and Amy Mackechnie, Senior Associate This article considers the recent decision in [...]
The AI Arms Race and what it means for Competition Law: A new era or new focus
by Ahmore Burger-Smidt, Director and Head of Regulatory We are not in the habit of writing breathless technology briefings. That [...]
The AI Governance Stack and South Africa’s Draft National AI Policy: An Operational Gap in Search of a Framework
by Ahmore Burger-Smidt, Director and Head of Regulatory Author's Note I am presently reading Noah M Kenney's Governing Intelligence: Law, [...]
Speak now or forever hold your peace. The draft AI policy has been published and parties have 60 days to comment
by Ahmore Burger-Smidt, Director and Head of Regulatory On 10 April 2026, South Africa's Department of Communications and Digital Technologies [...]
