- The Labour Court ruled that a warehouse manager’s crude joke about a male employee’s body crossed the line and amounted to sexual harassment.
- The court found that the remark undermined the employee’s dignity, especially because it was made in front of female colleagues.
- The employer was found responsible for failing to properly address the complaint as sexual harassment.
A crude workplace joke comparing a male employee’s body to a fingerette was found to be sexual harassment by the Labour Court. The court said that even a single humiliating remark can violate an employee’s dignity and amount to unfair discrimination.
The judgment makes it clear that workplace humour has boundaries, especially when it targets a person’s body or sexuality in front of colleagues.
Joke made in front of female colleagues
The incident happened on 10 July 2024, while employees were cleaning a stationery cupboard at EasyBranch.
Warehouse manager Angela Evertse-Brown found a box of fingerettes, which are small rubber finger covers used when handling paper. She called the warehouse attendant over and offered him some.
When he came over, she joked that the fingerettes were as big as his mthondo, referring to his penis, before handing them to him. The remark was made in front of several female colleagues who were also cleaning the cupboard.
According to evidence, the women laughed at the joke, and the employee laughed too. But the Court found that just because he laughed, it didn’t mean the comment was welcome or acceptable.
Later that day, the employee spoke to Evertse-Brown in private and told her he was unhappy with what she said. He explained that he felt humiliated by the remark. Evertse-Brown apologised right away and repeated her apology several times.
The next day, the employee did not come to work. When Evertse-Brown called to ask why he was absent, he said he was still dealing with the embarrassment from the joke she had made about him in front of his female colleagues.
One joke was enough
The employer argued that the comment was a one-off joke, was not sexual in nature, and should not be seen as sexual harassment. The Labour Court disagreed.
Acting Judge M Sass found that the remark was unwanted, sexual in nature, and made by a manager in front of other employees, which undermined the employee’s dignity.
The judge said that even though the incident only happened once, it could still qualify as sexual harassment. Judge Sass said, "A single incident of unwelcome sexual conduct may count as sexual harassment."
The court also found that the joke was degrading because it publicly referred to the employee's private parts while colleagues laughed at him.
Judge Sass said, "The remark reduced the employee’s dignity as an adult and made him seem undignified. These comments described his private parts in front of everyone present, all of whom were women."
Apology did not erase the harm
The manager apologised immediately after the employee spoke to her, and repeated her apology during a grievance meeting.
The employer then set up a grievance hearing with an independent chairperson. During the hearing, Evertse-Brown admitted that she had overstepped and acted inappropriately as a manager. She promised not to repeat her conduct.
The chairperson recommended that the company provide harassment training to employees and set up a more independent grievance process. The employee, however, was still unhappy, as he believed disciplinary action should have been taken against his manager and not just resolved through the grievance process.
He then referred an unfair discrimination dispute to the CCMA, where an arbitrator found that he had been subjected to sexual harassment, held the employer vicariously liable, and awarded him R100 000 in compensation.
Employer liable for failing to recognise sexual harassment
Although the company arranged a grievance meeting, the Labour Court found that it treated the complaint as a normal workplace issue instead of recognising it as sexual harassment.
Judge Sass said the employer failed to take the steps required by Section 60 of the Employment Equity Act to eliminate the discriminatory conduct, which made the company vicariously liable for the manager’s actions.
Although the company appealed the CCMA award, the Labour Court agreed that the employee had been subjected to sexual harassment and unfair discrimination, and that the employer was liable under the Employment Equity Act.
However, Judge Sass found that the R100 000 compensation award was too high for a one-off incident and reduced it to R25 000, but left the findings on liability unchanged.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
