South African employers must act swiftly on sexual harassment allegations to avoid liability under the Employment Equity Act (EEA), as a recent Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) ruling demonstrates.
The case, Independent Municipal and Allied Trade Union obo S and another v Nelson Mandela Metropolitan Municipality, highlights the legal and reputational risks of inadequate responses to workplace discrimination.
Businesses must prioritise robust processes to ensure compliance and maintain trust, a critical lesson in South Africa’s evolving corporate landscape.
Initial accusation
In this case, two library assistants at Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University accused a colleague of sexual harassment in May 2018. They reported the issue to their supervisor, Ms Dinie, who allegedly responded without urgency or sensitivity. The first complainant felt dismissed, receiving no guidance, while the second perceived her concerns as minimised.
Only when escalated to a senior supervisor, Mrs Titus, on 18 May, did the response gain momentum. Titus requested written statements, and the matter reached the Labour Relations department.
Within three weeks, the employer suspended the accused and relocated him to another workplace due to a concurrent staff strike.
A disciplinary hearing, held within two months, cleared the accused, but the employer kept him separated to protect the complainants. Dissatisfied, the complainants referred the matter to the CCMA, alleging unfair discrimination under Section 60 of the EEA and seeking compensation.
Reasonable response
Section 60 holds employers liable for employee misconduct unless they take “reasonably practicable” steps to address it. Employers must be notified, consult relevant parties, and act to eliminate the conduct, or face liability unless they prove reasonable efforts. The complainants argued Dinie’s inaction failed this standard. The employer countered that its Labour Relations Practitioner acted on the same day as each complaint, held a consultative meeting, and suspended the accused within four days, opting for a formal procedure as requested.
The CCMA arbitrator ruled the employer acted promptly.
Dinie escalated the issue, Titus secured written statements, and the employer’s actions — consultation, suspension, relocation, and a swift hearing — met Section 60(4)’s requirements. The ongoing workplace separation, despite the not guilty verdict, reinforced this. The complainants’ failure to dispute the employer’s evidence led to the claim’s dismissal.
The ruling clarifies that employers need not take every possible step, but must act reasonably and promptly, a case-specific standard. Here, the employer’s escalation and protective measures sufficed. The Code of Good Practice on the Prevention and Elimination of Harassment in the Workplace provides further guidance, urging clear policies and training.
Potential risks of slow responses
For South African businesses, the message is urgent: delayed or inadequate responses to harassment risk legal liability, reputational harm, and eroded trust.
Clear reporting channels, trained supervisors, and decisive investigations are essential. This aligns with broader governance trends, such as Transnet’s push for transparency to attract investment or the National AI Policy Framework’s emphasis on ethical standards. In a competitive market, compliance and trust are non-negotiable.
Employers must strengthen harassment policies now. Proactive steps — robust reporting, training, and swift action — mitigate risks and uphold EEA obligations.
The CCMA’s ruling is a call to action: timely, reasonable responses are critical for a fair, thriving workplace.
