Religious Beliefs and Operational Requirements
Key Lessons from the Labour Appeal Court in Sun International v Sayiti.
Balancing employees’ constitutional rights with workplace operational needs remains one of the most complex areas of South African labour law. The recent Labour Appeal Court decision in Sun International Management Ltd v Sayiti (JA 13/23) [2024] ZALAC 52; [2025] 1 BLLR 9 (LAC) (21 October 2024) provides valuable guidance on how courts approach cases where religious observance conflicts with the operational demands of a job.
The judgment clarifies two important legal principles:
- 1. When a job requirement qualifies as an “inherent requirement of the job”, and
- 2. The extent to which employers must accommodate employees’ religious beliefs.
For employers, the case offers important lessons about how to structure job roles, manage accommodation requests, and defend operational decisions.
Background of the dispute
Mr Lucky Sayiti was employed by Sun International as a Marketing Manager responsible for the East African and SADC regions within the company’s hospitality division. His duties included promoting the organisation’s services, engaging with international tourism stakeholders, and attending tourism trade shows and promotional events, many of which took place over weekends. During the course of his employment, Mr Sayiti became a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, a faith that observes the Sabbath from sunset on Friday to sunset on Saturday. He accordingly informed the employer that he would no longer be able to travel or attend work-related events during that period. This created a practical difficulty for the employer, as many tourism industry events and marketing engagements take place over weekends. After attempting to manage the situation, the employer ultimately concluded that the employee was unable to perform the inherent requirements of the position and terminated his employment.
The Labour Court decision
The Labour Court initially ruled in favour of the employee. It held that the dismissal constituted automatic unfair dismissal based on religious discrimination. It found that the employer had not proven that weekend work was an inherent requirement of the position.
The Labour Appeal Court overturns the decision
The Labour Appeal Court overturned the decision of the Labour Court and disagreed with its reasoning. It held that the correct test for determining whether a requirement constitutes an inherent requirement of a job is whether the requirement is rationally connected to the performance of the job, adopted in good faith, and reasonably necessary to achieve a legitimate work-related purpose. Applying this test, the LAC found that the role of Marketing Manager required attendance at international trade shows and promotional events, which frequently take place over weekends in the tourism industry. The LAC therefore concluded that these activities were central to the commercial purpose of the position rather than incidental duties.
Why this judgment matters
This judgment is significant because it clarifies how courts balance employees’ constitutional rights with the operational realities faced by employers. While employees enjoy strong protection against discrimination on religious grounds, those protections do not automatically override legitimate operational requirements of a business. The decision confirms that where an employer can demonstrate that a particular requirement is genuinely inherent to the job, reliance on that requirement may constitute a lawful justification for dismissal.
Key Takeaways for Employers
First, employers should clearly define the inherent requirements of a position. Employment contracts, job descriptions and recruitment documents should expressly identify essential operational requirements, such as travel, weekend work or shift work, where these form part of the role.
Second, operational justification is critical. Courts will closely scrutinise whether a requirement is genuinely necessary for the performance of the job, rather than merely convenient for the employer.
Third, employers must make reasonable efforts to accommodate employees before taking disciplinary or incapacity action. This requires employers to demonstrate that meaningful attempts were made to adjust working arrangements where possible.
Fourth, the duty to accommodate is not unlimited. Employers are not required to remove core duties from a position or create operational hardship in order to accommodate an employee’s religious or other protected practices.
Finally, the process should be carefully documented. Employers should keep clear records of consultations with the employee, the accommodation measures considered or attempted, and the operational constraints that influenced the final decision.