South Africa Case Law

Marasi v Petroleum Oil and Gas Corporation of South Africa (C219/2020)

Marasi v Petroleum Oil and Gas Corporation of South Africa (C219/2020) [2023] ZALCCT 34 (27 June 2023)

Court

Labour Court Cape Town

Case number

C219/2020

Judge

Rabkin-Naicker

The Court found that the respondent's substance abuse policy, including the cannabis cut-off limit, is a reasonable and necessary measure aligned with statutory health and safety obligations in a hazardous work environment. Testing negative for cannabis above the prescribed limit is an inherent requirement of the applicant's job, given the operational risks at the refinery. The policy applies universally and does not target or disproportionately impact any cultural or religious group unfairly. The applicant was not suspended in terms of labour law, but rather had his access blocked for safety…

Source excerpt

• Unfair Discrimination
• Inherent Requirements Of Job
• Reasonable Accommodation
• Medical Testing
• Employment Equity Act
• Occupational Health And Safety

Marasi v Petroleum, Oil and Gas Corporation of South Africa (SOC) Ltd (C219/2020)

Marasi v Petroleum, Oil and Gas Corporation of South Africa (SOC) Ltd (C219/2020) [2023] ZALCCT 38; [2023] 10 BLLR 1043 (LC); (2023) 44 ILJ 2261 (LC) (27 June 2023)

Court

Labour Court Cape Town

Case number

C219/2020

Judge

Rabkin-Naicker

The Labour Court held that PetroSA’s substance-abuse policy was a lawful safety measure and dismissed claims of cultural discrimination and unfair labour practice.

• Unfair Discrimination
• Employment Equity Act
• Inherent Requirements Of Job
• Reasonable Accommodation
• Medical Testing
• Workplace Safety

General Industries Workers Union of South Africa and Another v African Explosives Limited (J2311/14)

General Industries Workers Union of South Africa and Another v African Explosives Limited (J2311/14) [2022] ZALCJHB 234; (2022) 43 ILJ 2496 (LC) (18 August 2022)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J2311/14

Judge

P Nkutha-Nkontwana

The court found that effective communication was an inherent requirement of the Technologist position, as the incumbent was required to interact with both internal and external stakeholders, including suppliers and end users. The evidence established that Mr Tshaya suffered from a severe speech impediment, confirmed by a speech therapist, which rendered him unable to perform the essential communication functions required for the position. The respondent had taken reasonable steps to accommodate Mr Tshaya by promoting him to Lead Operator and providing necessary physical accommodations. The ap…

Source excerpt

• Unfair Discrimination
• Employment Equity Act
• Reasonable Accommodation
• Inherent Requirements Of Job
• Disability Discrimination

City of Cape Town v South African Municipal Workers Unions obo Damons (CA01/2019)

City of Cape Town v South African Municipal Workers Unions obo Damons (CA01/2019) [2020] ZALAC 9; (2020) 41 (ILJ) 1893 (LAC); [2020] 9 BLLR 875 (LAC) (18 May 2020)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

CA01/2019

Judges

Davis, Sutherland, Murphy

The Labour Appeal Court held that the advancement policy was not discriminatory under section 6(1) of the Employment Equity Act because the requirements for promotion to Senior Firefighter, including physical fitness and the ability to perform operational firefighting duties, are inherent to the position. The differentiation between Damons and active firefighters is justified by the rational requirements of the policy and the essential functions of the job. Reasonable accommodation does not extend to advancement where the employee cannot perform the core duties of the position. The employer's…

Source excerpt

• Unfair Discrimination
• Employment Equity Act
• Reasonable Accommodation
• Inherent Requirements Of Job

TDF Network Africa (Pty) Ltd v Faris (CA 4/17)

TDF Network Africa (Pty) Ltd v Faris (CA 4/17) [2018] ZALAC 30; [2019] 2 BLLR 127 (LAC); (2019) 40 ILJ 326 (LAC) (5 November 2018)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

CA 4/17

Judges

Davis, Murphy, Kathree-Setiloane

The Labour Appeal Court held that dismissing a Seventh Day Adventist for not working Saturdays was automatically unfair religious discrimination.

• Automatic Unfair Dismissal
• Religious Discrimination
• Reasonable Accommodation
• Employment Equity Act
• Inherent Requirements Of Job
• Automatic-unfair-dismissal

Independent Municipal and Allied Trade Union and Another v City of Cape Town (LC521/03)

Independent Municipal and Allied Trade Union and Another v City of Cape Town (LC521/03) [2005] ZALC 10; [2005] 10 BLLR 1084 (LC); (2005) 26 ILJ 1404 (LC) (18 July 2005)

Court

Labour Court

Case number

C 521/2003

Judge

Murphy AJ

The Labour Court held that Cape Town’s blanket ban on insulin-dependent diabetics as firefighters was unfair discrimination and required individual assessment.

• Employment Equity Act
• Unfair Discrimination
• Inherent Requirements Of Job
• Individual Assessment
• Medical Fitness
• Disability Definition