Department of Correctional Services & another v Police and Prisons Civil Rights Union (POPCRU) & others

The second to sixth respondents were male correctional officers at Pollsmoor Prison who wore dreadlocks - some for religious reasons (Rastafarianism) and others for cultural reasons (Xhosa tradition of traditional healer initiation). All had long, exemplary service records. In January 2007, a new area commissioner took office and began enforcing the Department's Corporate Identity Dress Code, which prohibited male (but not female) officials from wearing dreadlocks. The dress code required men's hair not to be longer than the collar, not to cover more than half the ear, and specifically prohibited "Dreadlocks" hairstyle. The respondents refused to cut their hair when ordered to do so, citing their sincerely held religious and cultural beliefs. They were suspended on 2 February 2007 and dismissed in June 2007 after a disciplinary hearing. The respondents challenged their dismissals as automatically unfair discrimination under section 187(1)(f) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995.

• Whether the dismissal of the respondents for refusing to cut their dreadlocks constituted automatically unfair discrimination under section 187(1)(f) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995
• Whether the dress code discriminated against the respondents on the grounds of religion, culture and/or gender
• Whether direct or indirect discrimination was established
• Whether any discrimination was justified under section 187(2)(a) of the LRA as based on an inherent requirement of the particular job
• What constitutes an 'inherent requirement' of a job for purposes of justifying discriminatory dismissal

The appeal was dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel. The Labour Appeal Court's order was upheld, which had confirmed the Labour Court's finding of automatically unfair dismissal and orders for reinstatement and compensation.

A dismissal for refusal to comply with a dress code that prohibits hairstyles worn in observance of sincerely held religious or cultural beliefs constitutes direct discrimination on grounds of religion and culture under section 187(1)(f) of the LRA. Once discrimination on a listed ground is established, unfairness is presumed. Such discrimination can only be justified under section 187(2)(a) if the employer proves that the prohibited conduct or appearance relates to an inherent requirement of the particular job. An inherent requirement means a permanent attribute or quality forming an essential element and an indispensable attribute which must relate in an inescapable way to the performing of a job. A policy is not justified if it restricts a practice of religious or cultural belief that does not affect an employee's ability to perform duties, does not jeopardise safety of the public or other employees, and does not cause undue hardship to the employer in a practical sense. The employer must establish a rational connection between the purported purpose of the discrimination and the measure taken.

The Court observed that the commissioner's change of position on appeal - from arguing the dress code served uniformity and security to arguing it targeted dagga use associated with Rastafarianism - was unhelpful and unsupported by evidence. The Court noted that no foundation was laid for this belated argument. The Court also observed that a policy that effectively punishes the practice of a religion and culture degrades and devalues the followers of that religion and culture in society and is a palpable invasion of their dignity. The Court further noted that the disparate treatment constituted discrimination and the appellants' motives and objectives of the dress code were entirely irrelevant for this finding, citing Pretoria City Council v Walker and the Birmingham City Council case.

This case is a landmark in South African labour and equality jurisprudence. It establishes important principles regarding: (1) Protection of religious and cultural practices in the workplace, particularly for minority religions and African traditional practices; (2) The interpretation of "inherent requirement" under section 187(2)(a) of the LRA - requiring employers to prove a rational connection between discriminatory policies and legitimate job requirements; (3) Recognition that policies targeting outward manifestations of religious and cultural beliefs (such as hairstyles) constitute direct discrimination on grounds of religion and culture; (4) The principle that employer policies cannot be justified merely by general concerns about uniformity or discipline where no actual impairment of job performance is demonstrated; (5) Application of substantive equality principles in the labour context, requiring consideration of the dignity impact and position of affected groups in society; (6) Recognition of Rastafarianism and traditional African spiritual practices as protected religious and cultural beliefs entitled to constitutional protection in employment. The case demonstrates the courts' willingness to protect workplace diversity and religious/cultural expression against blanket uniformity policies.