Tug of War: Balancing the Right to Freedom and Inherent Job Requirements
SUN INTERNATIONAL MANA (Pty) Ltd AND LUCKY SAYITI – JA 13/20
Background of the Case
The facts of the case were briefly that the employee after being employed for two months, disclosed to the company that he is a Seventh Day Adventist and thus cannot work on the Sabbath day. Initially for a period of sixteen months this was condoned as the weekend work was shared between the team, but this became unstainable and resulted in the employee being incapacitated based on inherent job requirements and after alternatives were considered.
Need clarity on accommodating employee beliefs? Consult our Labour Law specialists
Challenge Under Section 187(1)(f)
The employee challenged the dismissal as being automatically unfair in terms of Section 187(1)(f), as his employment contract made no reference to weekend work being an inherent job requirement and that he had a good track record on performance.
The Labour Court found in the employee’s favour as it held that the employment contract did not expressly state that weekend work is an inherent job requirement.
Section 187(2)(a) Defence and Labour Appeal Court Findings
The case was subsequently referred to the Labour Appeal Court, wherein a defence in terms of Section 187(2)(a) was raised by the employer. The Appeal Court was faced with the issue of truly dissecting the mechanism and workings of a Section 187(2)(a) as defence against the backdrop of a dismissal based on discrimination.
Reasonable Accommodation vs. Inherent Job Requirement
The Court had to consider two elements specific to the case:
- Firstly, whether weekend work constitutes an inherent job requirement of the specific role, in the absence of weekend work reflecting and being expressly stated as a term and condition on the employment contract;
- Secondly, what constituted reasonable accommodation in the operational setting of the case;
Nkutha-Nkontwana, JA, concluded on the first point that weekend duties/work constituted a legitimate commercial rationale which was reasonably connected to the fulfilment of a work-related purpose and therefore it was held that weekend work in this context constituted an inherent requirement of the job.
However, on the second issue Nkutha-Nkontwana, JA, concluded that there existed no clear impact or ramifications on the business operations. Further a 50% salary deduction was not reasonable accommodation, specifically in the face of a good track record on performance. Ultimately, compelling an employee to choose between his convictions and his career, when non-compliance would have little or no ramifications to the employer’s business, cannot be permitted.
Ensure your accommodation measures are legally sound—speak with our Labour Law experts today.
Concurrence: Van Nieker JA and Savage ADJP
Van Nieker, JA, concluded as concurred by Savage ADJP, on the first issue, that the weekend work requirement in the context of the case is a requirement that is rationally connected to the performance of the job and necessary to the accomplishment of a legitimate work-related purpose.
Moreover, on the second issue, Van Nieker, JA, concluded as concurred by Savage ADJP, that continuation of the team standing in and taking on the employee’s weekend work was unsustainable. The cost for the employee of the team completing the weekend work of and the effect it had on the team’s own ability to attend to their duties, was also considered unsustainable. Additionally, the employer afforded the employee an alternative position, albeit at a reduced salary, which at the time it was the only available position as there were no other suitable vacancies.
The conclusion was that it was difficult to imagine what more the employer had to do in these circumstances to accommodate the employee’s inability to engage on weekend work due to his beliefs.
Van Nieker, JA, as concurred by Savage ADJP, found that the dismissal was substantively and procedurally fair.
Key Takeaways for Employers
This case makes it clear that the Court adjudge the importance of an inherent job requirement needing to be linked to a commercial rationale in the performance of the job, coupled with the necessity to achieve a legitimate work-related purpose. In addition, what constitutes reasonable accommodation would be measured on a case-by-case basis giving affect to the specific circumstances of each case.
It is also clear that where an employer provides cogent evidence of reasonable assistance or reasonable accommodation provided and this is declined or refused, coupled with tolerating the inconvenience until it becomes untenable within the operational environment, the actions of the employer would constitute reasonable accommodation.
Why Expert Guidance Matters
When balancing religious freedom and operational needs, missteps can lead to claims of unfair dismissal or discrimination. Partnering with a specialist in Labour Law helps you navigate complex defences under Sections 187(1)(f) and 187(2)(a), ensuring your policies and processes withstand legal scrutiny.
