Article 24/2025

In Enever v Barloworld Equipment (2024) 35 SALLR 115 (LAC), the employee claimed, amongst others, being unfairly discriminated against by her employer on the grounds of being tested positive for the use of cannabis, used for non-medicinal purposes. With reference to Harksen v Lane NO and Others 1997 (11) BCLR 1489 (CC) and the principles of such case applied by the constitutional court in Mbana v Shepstone & Wylie (2015) 36 ILJ 1805 (CC), what approach did the labour appeal court follow when applying s11 of the EEA?

_____________________________________

IF THE ALLEGED DISCRIMINATION EXISTS ON A LISTED GROUND

  • The presumption is that the discrimination is unfair.
  • The onus is on the employer to prove either of the following:
    • the discrimination did not take place as alleged, or
    • the discrimination is rational/not unfair/otherwise justifiable

IF DISCRIMINATION IS ALLEGED ON AN ARBITRARY GROUND (i e A NON- LISTED GROUND)

  • The onus is on the employee to prove:
    • the conduct complained of is irrational
    • the conduct complained of amounts to discrimination
    • such discrimination is unfair
  • A non-listed ground must ‘smell, taste and feel’ like a listed ground and the test being the following: whether it impacts human dignity or affects humans adversely in a comparably serious manner as the listed grounds.

See, further, Naidoo v Parliament of the Republic of South Africa (2020) 41 ILJ 1931 (LAC)

July 3, 2025

Is it a requirement that each page of an affidavit must be initialled? Is it a requirement that every page of every annexure to an affidavit must be initialled?

June 26, 2025

The first leg of the test to determine whether or not urgency exists, when an urgent application is brought, requires a court to assess whether an urgent hearing is necessary because the applicant will not be able to obtain substantial redress in the normal course.

June 19, 2025

Previous articles this year dealt with a zero-tolerance policy when tested positively for alcohol or drugs, as well as a zero-tolerance policy in respect of having tested positive for cannabis. In short, the courts hold the viewpoint that, by means of such policies, an employer is not permitted to create an absolute ‘no go zone’ and, furthermore, held that, at all given times, one of the fundamental questions to be asked, irrespective of the content of such zero-tolerance policy, is the effect of the drugs/alcohol/cannabis on the ability of the employee to do his/her job.