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
As little as possible infringement? Is this the case when thinking about the right to privacy in South Africa?
by Ahmore Burger-Smidt, Director and Head of the Data Privacy practice A year back there would have been a massive [...]
Some more exemptions from Competition Law during the pandemic
Competition Law during the pandemic We have previously reported on the various block exemptions issued by the Minister of Trade, [...]
New directions, regulations and a Labour Court judgment bring clarity to the mining industry
by Chris Stevens, Director and Head of the Mining, Environmental & Resources practice; Kathleen Louw, Director; Bronwyn Parker, Senior Associate; [...]
The impact of COVID-19 on the use of common areas
by Fátima Rodrigues, Director and Head of the Property Law & Real Estate practice (Johannesburg) and Yatheen Ramnath, Candidate Attorney [...]
Cancellations and postponements of dividends
by Kevin Trudgeon, Director; Brian Price, Director; and Raquel Goncalves, Candidate Attorney The COVID-19 outbreak, the subsequent lockdown and other [...]
A jack of all trades or jacking the trades of others: A case of having your fingers burnt in too many pies
National Union of Metal Workers Of South Africa V Lufil Packaging (Isithebe) (A Division Of Bidvest Paperplus (Pty) Limited) (Unreported) [...]
