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
New share buyback provisions in the Companies Act

New share buyback provisions in the Companies Act

On 25 July 2024, the amendments to the Companies Act 71 of 2008 (the “Act”) were assented to by the President. Since then, certain provisions of the Companies Amendment Act 16 of 2024 (the “Amendment Act”) have come into operation on 27 December 2024. The Amendment Act introduces amendments to section 48 of the Act, which deals with share buyback transactions and is one of the provisions which are now in operation. A brief discussion of the amendments to section 48 follows.

Starlink’s signal “jammed” in SA? Navigating regulatory hurdles.

Starlink’s signal “jammed” in SA? Navigating regulatory hurdles.

American satellite internet giant Starlink is set to make waves in South Africa but has locked horns with the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (“ICASA”). Starlink has urged ICASA to rethink its requirements for issuing licenses to service providers in South Africa, set in terms of the Electronic Communications Act 36 of 2005 (“ECA”). This clash between a large international enterprise and the South African government highlights the complexities of introducing foreign investment into a well-established Black Economic Empowerment (“BEE”) regulatory environment. What follows below is a brief observation of the latest developments regarding Starlink’s proposed entry into South Africa as a service provider and foreign investor.

Merger retrenchments or operational cuts – Where’s the line?

Merger retrenchments or operational cuts – Where’s the line?

2024 was filled with a flurry of new proposed acts, regulations, and landmark judgments, so, understandably, some significant decisions may have gone unnoticed. One such case is the recent judgment in Coca-Cola Beverages Africa (Pty) Ltd v Competition Commission and Another 2024 (4) SA 391 (CC) (17 April 2024), wherein the Constitutional Court examined whether retrenchments were merger-specific or the consequence of operational requirements.

Sign up to our newsletter

Pin It on Pinterest