Dress codes are a familiar part of many workplaces, yet employers often fail to calibrate how far they are allowed to go in regulating employee personal appearance. While employers may enforce standards of neatness, safety and professionalism, these rules cannot override constitutional rights, nor can they operate in a discriminatory manner. A recent reminder of this emerged from the Supreme Court of Appeal, where the court had to consider the fairness of dismissing correctional officers for refusing to cut their dreadlocks, contrary to the employer’s dress code.

In South Africa, no legislation expressly prohibits appearance-based standards or regulates dress codes in the workplace. Ideally, appearance standards and dress codes are regulated by policies put in place by the employer. However, such policies must consider constitutional rights like dignity, equality, and freedom of expression, etc.

In Department of Correctional Services & Another v Police and Prisons Civil Rights Union (POPCRU) and Others (107/12) [2013] ZASCA 40 (28 March 2013), the Court had to consider whether dismissing employees for hairstyles worn as part of their sincerely held religious and cultural practices was justified. 
 
The employees, all male correctional officers, were charged with contravening the Department’s corporate dress code, which prohibited male officials from wearing dreadlocks. The officers refused to cut their hair on the basis that their dreadlocks were worn in observance of Rastafarian beliefs and Xhosa ancestral traditions. Despite many years of unproblematic service and no evidence that their hairstyles had compromised safety or security, they were suspended, charged and ultimately dismissed.

Aggrieved by the outcome of the disciplinary hearing, the employees referred the dispute to the Labour Court, which held that the dismissal amounted to unfair discrimination, primarily on the ground that female officers were permitted to wear dreadlocks. The employer appealed to the Labour Appeal Court, which, in turn, confirmed the finding of discrimination, adding that the rule also infringed the employees’ rights to religion and culture.

Dissatisfied with the decision of the Labour Appeal Court, the Department appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal. The central issues which the Court had to consider included, amongst others:
 

• Whether the discriminatory impact of the dress code was justifiable. Whether the employer had demonstrated an inherent requirement of the job that justified forcing employees to cut their dreadlocks. The Department argued that dreadlocks could pose a security risk or create discipline challenges, but provided no evidence that the officers’ hair had ever created such problems.
• The Court held that no rational connection was established between the purported purpose of the discrimination and the measure taken. Neither was it shown that the department would suffer an unreasonable burden if it had exempted the respondents.

The Supreme Court of Appeal ultimately held that the dismissals were automatically unfair on the grounds of religion, culture and gender. It emphasised that forcing employees to choose between their beliefs and their employment constituted a serious invasion of dignity. The Court also made clear that policies which punish cultural or religious expression, where such expression does not compromise safety or performance, could not be justified.

The judgment serves as a reminder that although employers may regulate appearance, these rules must be rational, consistently applied, and aligned with constitutional rights. Employees cannot be dismissed for dress or grooming practices that are linked to protected religious or cultural beliefs unless the employer can demonstrate a genuine and compelling operational need. The POPCRU decision is a warning that dress-code enforcement cannot be arbitrary, discriminatory, or blind to the diverse identities present in South African workplaces. For employees and employers alike, the case reinforces the importance of balancing organisational standards with dignity, equality and inclusivity.


Disclaimer: This article is the personal opinion/view of the author(s) and does not necessarily present the views of the firm. The content is provided for information only and should not be seen as an exact or complete exposition of the law. Accordingly, no reliance should be placed on the content for any reason whatsoever, and no action should be taken on the basis thereof unless its application and accuracy have been confirmed by a legal advisor. The firm and author(s) cannot be held liable for any prejudice or damage resulting from action taken based on this content without further written confirmation by the author(s).