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
Out with maternity leave, in with parental leave

Out with maternity leave, in with parental leave

A landmark judgment delivered on 3 October 2025 by the Constitutional Court of South Africa has reshaped the legal landscape governing employment and family rights. In Van Wyk and Others v Minister of Employment and Labour; Commission for Gender Equality and Another v Minister of Employment and Labour and Others (CCT 308/23) [2025] ZACC 20, the Court declared several provisions of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act 75 of 1997 (“BCEA”) and the Unemployment Insurance Act 63 of 2001 (“UIF Act”) invalid and inconsistent with the Constitution in that they unfairly discriminate between different classes of parents.

AI regulation on the horizon

AI regulation on the horizon

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming industries, and everyday life. We now live in an era where information cannot be trusted at face value, and content creation blurs the lines between reality and fiction. With such a dangerous capability literally at anyone’s fingertips, it is normal to wonder whether AI is being regulated in South Africa. In this article, we look at the current position regarding AI in South Africa.

The tax distinction between local and foreign dividends

The tax distinction between local and foreign dividends

Dividends from South African resident companies fall under the dividends tax regime and are subject to a 20% withholding tax in terms of section 64E of the Income Tax Act 58 of 1962 (“Act”), known as dividends tax, rather than normal income tax. In contrast, foreign dividends are included in a taxpayer’s gross income unless relief is available under section 10B of the Income Tax Act 58 of 1962, which provides a full or partial participation exemption depending on certain circumstances. In this article, we unpack the important distinction in the tax treatment of local vs foreign dividends in South Africa.

Sign up to our newsletter

Pin It on Pinterest