Religious practice and inherent requirements of the job

The tension between religious beliefs and workplace demands was addressed in the decision of the Labour Appeal Court (LAC) in Sun International Management Limited v Sayiti (JA13/23) [2024] ZALCJHB 411 (21 October 2024). The issue to be decided was whether the employee’s dismissal was automatically unfair, given that the reason for his dismissal was his inability to perform an inherent requirement of the job, working between sunset on Friday and sunset on Saturday, because of his religious beliefs.

11 Nov 2024 3 min read Employment Law Alert Article

At a glance

  • The employee’s contract of employment stated, inter alia, that “…normal hours of work will be 08h30 to 17h00 Mondays to Fridays, with an hour for lunch. However, due to the nature of the business, you will be required to work longer hours from time to time without additional compensation.” 
  • The Labour Court found that the employee’s dismissal was automatically unfair in terms of section 187(1)(f) in that the dismissal constituted discrimination on the basis of religion and that the employee was unfairly discriminated against in terms of section 6 of the Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998.
  • Employers must be careful in substantiating whether a job entails an inherent requirement, and whether the employer has made adequate efforts to accommodate the employee where relevant. 

Background

The employee’s contract of employment stated, inter alia, that “…normal hours of work will be 08h30 to 17h00 Mondays to Fridays, with an hour for lunch. However, due to the nature of the business, you will be required to work longer hours from time to time without additional compensation.” Furthermore, the employee’s employment contract contained a job flexibility requirement clause which stated that the employee may be required to perform work in other roles or departments, and should the employee refuse, disciplinary action may be taken. At the time that the employee was appointed and the agreement concluded, the employee agreed to the terms and did not raise any concerns.

Soon thereafter, the employee indicated that he is unable to travel or to attend to work events that took place during the Sabbath (from sunset Friday to sunset Saturday) on the basis of his religious beliefs as he identified as a Seventh Day Adventist. The employer accommodated the employee for a period of 16 months by delegating the relevant duties that fell over the Sabbath period to other employees, including a line manager. However, given capacity constraints, this accommodation was no longer tenable and an incapacity process and hearing was convened. The employer submitted that working on weekends was an inherent requirement of the job and offered the employee an alternative position that came with a 45% salary reduction. The employee refused the offer of the alternative position. The employer terminated the employment agreement based on incapacity.

The Court

The Labour Court found that the employee’s dismissal was automatically unfair in terms of section 187(1)(f) in that the dismissal constituted discrimination on the basis of religion and that the employee was unfairly discriminated against in terms of section 6 of the Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998.

On appeal, in the Labour Appeal Court, the majority judgment found that the employee’s dismissal was not automatically unfair, as the weekend work requirement was an inherent job necessity. Weekend work was deemed an inherent job requirement because the position involved attending and hosting events crucial for the company’s operations, including national and international trade shows. This role required flexibility and availability for events that may occur on weekends, especially for trade shows and promotional activities. The LAC therefore found that this obligation was rationally connected to the job’s purpose and essential for fulfilling its responsibilities.

Moreover, the employer had made reasonable efforts to accommodate the employee’s religious beliefs. The employer allowed the employee to refrain from weekend work for 16 months. The employer also offered him an alternative position as a sales coordinator, which did not require weekend work, although it came with a lower salary and was therefore rejected by the employee. These efforts demonstrated the employer’s commitment to balancing the employee’s religious practices with the operational demands of the business.

Key Takeaway

Employers must be careful in substantiating whether a job entails an inherent requirement, and whether the employer has made adequate efforts to accommodate the employee where relevant. The factual context and these considerations are important factors for employers to carefully assess in situations where an employee is unable to or elects, for example, on the basis of religious belief, not to meet an inherent requirement of the job she/he holds.

The information and material published on this website is provided for general purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. We make every effort to ensure that the content is updated regularly and to offer the most current and accurate information. Please consult one of our lawyers on any specific legal problem or matter. We accept no responsibility for any loss or damage, whether direct or consequential, which may arise from reliance on the information contained in these pages. Please refer to our full terms and conditions. Copyright © 2024 Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr. All rights reserved. For permission to reproduce an article or publication, please contact us cliffedekkerhofmeyr@cdhlegal.com.