Be mindful that even ordinary words can be racist and derogatory

“I’ve recently seen the media reports on the case where a co-worker’s reference to another worker as a “swart man” was found to be racist and derogatory. On a daily basis I am aware of persons referring to others as white females or black persons for example, often in the context of work related matters. Surely this cannot all be seen as racist and derogatory?”

In the recent judgment by our Constitutional Court, the court was called on to decide whether one employee’s reference to another as “swart man” was racist and derogatory. In making its determination, the sentiments of the late former President Nelson Mandela was echoed who said that “the new moral and political challenge that our young democracy should grapple with decisively is de-racialising the South African society”. 

The brief facts of this judgment involved a Mr Bester who disrupted a meeting and aggressively demanded that the chief safety officer remove the black man’s vehicle from his parking bay failing which he would take the matter up with management. He was subsequently suspended from work, charged for making racial remarks towards a fellow employee and dismissed as a result. Mr Bester challenged the fairness of his dismissal at the CCMA which ruled in his favour and the matter went through the Labour Court all the way up to the Constitutional Court. 

Important to note is that the Constitutional Court held that the context in which the words were used were important in determining whether they were racist or derogatory. Accordingly, the test to determine whether words were intended to be racist or not is an objective test that requires a positive answer to the question whether a reasonably informed person of ordinary intelligence would perceive the words as racist or belittling. The Court said that the impact of the legacy left by apartheid and the racial segregation that has left our society with a racially charged present was the context in which Mr Bester’s conduct had to be considered. Based on this, the court found that Mr Bester was fairly dismissed and that his conduct was racist and derogatory.

Not only is this judgment important in that it explains how even ordinary words can be discriminatory or racist based on context and intent, but it sets out the test to be applied to determine this. From an employer perspective, it must also be understood that an employer must protect employees from any form of racial conduct or discrimination in the workplace and employers should be sensitive to how ordinary words are used and should sensitize its employees thereto.  

If one considers the continuing efforts of Government to curb racial discrimination and intolerance through for example the recent gazetting of the Prevention and Combating of Hate Crimes and Hate Speech Bill which aims to provide enforcement measures for the prosecution of hate crimes and hate speech, it is even pertinent that employers should sensitize staff and create an environment within which discriminatory, abusive and hateful conduct is not tolerated and the necessary policies and procedures are in place to deal with such conduct, should it arise.

July 12, 2018
Fee or tax? The court decides

Fee or tax? The court decides

With effect from 1 July 2025, the City of Cape Town introduced three new charges on residential rate bills. These charges were challenged by the South African Property Owners’ Association (SAPOA) and AfriForum, who argued that they were unlawful and improperly calculated. The dispute culminated in court applications seeking declaratory orders that the charges were invalid because they were inconsistent with the Constitution, national legislation, and the City’s own By-Laws.

Pay first… maybe not

Pay first… maybe not

For decades, the South African Revenue Service (“SARS”) has relied on the “pay now, argue later” rule as a cornerstone of tax administration. This principle permits SARS to collect disputed taxes before the underlying dispute has been resolved, often placing significant financial strain on taxpayers. While the rule serves an important fiscal purpose, it also raises critical questions regarding fairness, proportionality, and the limits of administrative discretion.

Sign up to our newsletter

Pin It on Pinterest