Raol Investments (Pty) Ltd t/a Thekwini Toyota v Madlala

The respondent, a long-serving employee of the appellant, was dismissed after he assaulted his immediate supervisor, Mr van Rooyen, by kicking him and attempting to punch him following a workplace altercation. Assault ordinarily justified dismissal under the employer’s disciplinary code. The respondent challenged the dismissal, relying on an earlier incident in which he himself had been assaulted by a white colleague, Mr Ferreira, who was not dismissed. In that earlier incident no formal complaint was lodged by the respondent, whereas Ferreira lodged a complaint alleging verbal and racial abuse, resulting only in a warning to the respondent. The Labour Court and Labour Appeal Court found the dismissal unfair, and the Labour Appeal Court further held that it was automatically unfair on the basis of racial discrimination.

The application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal was refused.

The case clarifies that unjustified differential treatment between employees does not automatically amount to racial discrimination. It draws an important distinction in South African labour law between unfair dismissal based on inconsistency and automatically unfair dismissal based on discrimination, emphasising the need for factual proof of discriminatory motive.