Under Section 187(2)(a) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (LRA), dismissals due to unfair discrimination may be deemed lawful if they arise from an inherent job requirement.
The Labour Appeal Court (LAC) evaluated this principle in the case of Sun International Management Limited v Sayiti (JA 13/23) [2024] ZALAC 52 (21 October 2024). The court examined the extent to which an employer must accommodate an employee whose religious beliefs conflict with inherent job requirements, particularly weekend work.
Case Background
Employment Terms and Religious Observations
The Respondent, a marketing manager at Sun International Management Limited, agreed to work from 08:30 to 17:00 on weekdays, with additional hours as needed, as outlined in his contract. During the hiring process, he did not raise concerns about his work schedule.
However, nearly two months after starting, he disclosed that his religious practice as a member of the Seventh Day Adventist Church prevented him from working or traveling during the Sabbath, which spans Friday sunset to Saturday sunset. Initially, the employer accommodated his religious needs by exempting him from Sabbath duties.
Challenges to Accommodation
After 16 months, the employer deemed this arrangement unsustainable. The Respondent’s absence during critical periods significantly burdened his line manager, who had to assume additional responsibilities, including attending trade shows.
Subsequently, the employer initiated an incapacity inquiry, asserting that the Respondent could not fulfill the inherent requirements of the marketing manager role. Although the employer offered the Respondent an alternative position that did not involve weekend work, the offer included a lower salary, which the Respondent declined. Consequently, his employment was terminated for incapacity based on job requirements.
Labour Court Findings
Discrimination vs. Job Requirements
After failed conciliation efforts, the Respondent claimed in the Labour Court that his dismissal was automatically unfair due to religious discrimination under Section 187(1)(f) of the LRA.
The Labour Court focused on whether weekend work constituted an inherent requirement of the job. It found that:
- The employment contract did not explicitly mandate weekend work.
- Weekend duties were not logically necessary for fulfilling the role of a marketing manager.
Additionally, the court determined that the employer had not demonstrated that accommodating the Respondent’s religious practices caused undue hardship. As a result, the dismissal was ruled automatically unfair, and the Respondent was reinstated.
Labour Appeal Court Ruling
Diverging Views
On appeal, the Labour Appeal Court issued both majority and minority judgments, referencing the earlier case of TFD Network Africa (Pty) Ltd v Faris, which established a two-part test for the Section 187(2)(a) defense:
- Whether the requirement is intrinsically linked to legitimate work objectives.
- Whether accommodating the employee would impose undue hardship on the employer.
While both judgments agreed that weekend work was an inherent job requirement, they differed on the accommodation issue.
Majority Decision
The majority concluded that the employer’s efforts to accommodate the Respondent were reasonable and sufficient, noting:
- The Respondent accepted a role that inherently required weekend availability but failed to disclose his religious restrictions during hiring.
- The employer accommodated the Respondent for 16 months despite operational challenges.
- When accommodation became untenable, the employer offered an alternative position that suited his religious needs, though at a lower salary, as no other roles were available.
The majority held that the employer was not legally obligated to create a new position solely to accommodate the Respondent. Consequently, the dismissal was deemed fair and the Labour Court’s decision overturned.
Minority Opinion
The minority agreed with the Labour Court, emphasizing the employer’s duty to reasonably accommodate the Respondent without undue hardship.
Key Takeaways
This case offers critical insights into balancing job requirements and employee rights:
- Inherent Job Requirements
Employers must demonstrate that a contested job requirement is essential for the role and directly linked to legitimate business objectives. - Reasonable Accommodation
Employers should explore adjustments to accommodate employees. However, they are not expected to endure undue hardship or operational disruptions, nor to create new roles for accommodation purposes. - Limits of Religious Accommodation
While religious considerations are important, they must be balanced against business needs. Dismissals may be justified if an employee cannot meet inherent job requirements and accommodation is no longer feasible.
Key Differences Between Labour Court and LAC Judgments
| Aspect | Labour Court Judgment | Labour Appeal Court Majority Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Inherent Requirement | Found weekend work non-essential | Confirmed weekend work as essential |
| Reasonable Accommodation | Employer failed to prove undue hardship | Employer took reasonable steps to accommodate |
| Outcome | Dismissal ruled automatically unfair | Dismissal ruled fair and justified |
FAQs
What constitutes an inherent job requirement under the LRA?
An inherent job requirement is a fundamental aspect of a role, necessary for achieving legitimate business objectives, without which the role cannot be effectively performed.
Can an employer dismiss an employee for religious reasons?
Employers cannot dismiss employees solely for religious reasons unless the inability to meet job requirements stems from those beliefs and reasonable accommodation is no longer viable.
How does the law define reasonable accommodation?
Reasonable accommodation involves adjustments to an employee’s role or environment to allow them to perform their duties without imposing significant hardship on the employer.
