The recent judgments in Sayiti v Sun International Management Limited (JS1019-16) [2023] ZALCJHB 104; (2023) 44 ILJ 1613 (LC) (17 January 2023) and Sun International Management Limited v Sayiti (JA13-23) [2024] ZALCJHB 411 (21 October 2024) present crucial insights for employers navigating the sensitive interplay between operational needs and religious accommodation in the workplace.

Initially, the Labour Court found in favour of Mr Lucky Sayiti, ruling that his dismissal for not working on Saturdays in observance of his religious beliefs was automatically unfair. However, the Labour Appeal Court (LAC) later overturned this decision, establishing that an employee’s inability to meet an inherent job requirement, even when influenced by religious observance, can justify dismissal if reasonable accommodation is no longer viable.

Mr Sayiti, a Marketing Manager for East Africa and Southern African Development Community (SADC) at Sun International, observed the Sabbath as a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, refraining from work between sunset on Friday and sunset on Saturday. His role required travel and attendance at weekend trade shows, which created challenges for Sun International’s operational demands. Despite temporary accommodations, Sayiti’s inability to work weekends eventually led to his dismissal after an incapacity hearing, sparking a legal dispute over the fairness of his termination and the extent of religious accommodation required.

The Labour Court initially sided with Sayiti, asserting that weekend work was not an absolute necessity for his position, thereby declaring the dismissal automatically unfair based on religious discrimination under Section 187(1)(f) of the Labour Relations Act. The Court emphasised that religious beliefs deserved protection and that Sun International’s defence failed to show that Saturday work was indispensable. However, this ruling was short-lived, as the case proceeded to the Labour Appeal Court.

On appeal, the LAC reached a different conclusion. It held that Sun International had demonstrated that weekend work was indeed an inherent requirement of Sayiti’s role, essential for fulfilling the company’s business needs in the competitive African tourism and events market. The LAC recognised Sun International’s attempts to accommodate Sayiti’s religious practices but acknowledged that these accommodations became unsustainable over time, especially as they placed undue strain on his colleagues.

The LAC ultimately found that Sayiti’s inability to fulfil a fundamental job requirement justified his dismissal, ruling that the company’s operational needs and reasonable efforts to accommodate him were sufficient to uphold the termination. This decision underscores that religious accommodation, while essential, has limits when it significantly disrupts essential business operations.

Employers can draw valuable guidance from this case when dealing with religious accommodation in the workplace, particularly when balancing business requirements with employees’ religious observances.

  1. Define Inherent Job Requirements Clearly: Employers should carefully consider and clearly define which duties are inherent to a position. The LAC’s ruling highlights that essential job functions are not mere preferences but are core to business operations. Document these requirements in job descriptions to prevent ambiguity and help manage expectations.
  2. Engage in Good Faith Accommodation Efforts: The Court’s ruling reinforced the importance of making genuine, good-faith efforts to accommodate employees’ religious practices. Temporary arrangements that do not place undue hardship on the business can demonstrate reasonable accommodation. However, employers are not required to maintain accommodations indefinitely if they prove unsustainable.
  3. Document Accommodation Efforts: Employers should maintain detailed records of all steps taken to accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs. Documentation of meetings, temporary adjustments, and performance reviews can serve as critical evidence in the event of a dispute, demonstrating that the company acted reasonably and fairly in seeking alternatives.
  4. Recognise the Limitations of Accommodation: While the Labour Relations Act (LRA) requires accommodation of religious practices, the LAC decision clarifies that there is a threshold beyond which accommodation becomes unreasonable, especially if it disrupts essential business functions. Employers have the right to enforce inherent job requirements when accommodation imposes significant operational challenges.
  5. Maintain a Consistent and Fair Approach: It is essential to apply accommodation policies consistently across employees to avoid discrimination claims. Where religious practices conflict with operational needs, employers should follow a structured approach, documenting each step to ensure fair treatment and demonstrate compliance with the law.

The LAC’s ruling is an important precedent for employers facing the complex task of balancing religious accommodation with business imperatives. It emphasises the need for employers to define job requirements carefully, engage in meaningful accommodation efforts, and recognise the reasonable limits of such accommodations. By applying these principles, employers can deal with religious accommodation requests respectfully and lawfully, fostering an inclusive workplace while safeguarding their operational needs.

Article by Tammy Koekemoer & Wesley Field

Dispute Resolution Official & Provincial Manager at Consolidated Employers Organisation (CEO SA)