Reasonable Accommodation In The Workplace: To Be Or Not To Be?
Freedom of religion is a fundamental right enshrined in and protected by section 15 of the Constitution. This right allows for the practice of religion without interference from the state and individuals. A question which often arises relates to the extent to which freedom of religion can be exercis...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Rowena Bronwen Bernard [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Afrikaans ; Deutsch ; Englisch ; Niederländisch |
| Erschienen: |
2014 |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
In: Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal - North-West University, 2008, 17(2014), 6, Seite 2869-2891 |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:17 ; year:2014 ; number:6 ; pages:2869-2891 |
| Links: |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
DOAJ024041661 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | DOAJ024041661 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230502080501.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 230226s2014 xx |||||o 00| ||afr c | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-627)DOAJ024041661 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)DOAJbbe08abd683c4d88ac590304df42ed9f | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a afr |a ger |a eng |a dut | ||
| 050 | 0 | |a K1-7720 | |
| 100 | 0 | |a Rowena Bronwen Bernard |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Reasonable Accommodation In The Workplace: To Be Or Not To Be? |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2014 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a Freedom of religion is a fundamental right enshrined in and protected by section 15 of the Constitution. This right allows for the practice of religion without interference from the state and individuals. A question which often arises relates to the extent to which freedom of religion can be exercised in the workplace. Religious practice often extends beyond societal norms, but religious intolerance has proven to be a source of conflict. In the workplace this conflict arises "where the employer's right to the employee's labour and service conflicts with the employee's inability or refusal to render services because of a religious or cultural belief". The courts have played an important role in balancing the rights of the employer to manage his business operations efficiently with the rights of the employee to practice his religious or cultural beliefs. The critical question is how the employer is expected to balance and maintain an orderly, disciplined and efficient workplace whilst accommodating an employee's right to religious freedom. The case of Department of Correctional Services v Police and Prison Civil Rights Union (POPCRU) 2011 32 ILJ 2629 (LAC) is one where the employer's application of rules relating to the dress code of employees impacted on the religious beliefs and practices of five staff. In this note, this decision and the decisions in other recent cases are analysed in order to determine how the courts have dealt with the issue of the reasonable accommodation of religious practices in the workplace. The employer in the POPCRU case was justified in wanting to improve the discipline and standards within the prison. The findings of the LAC and SCA were indeed correct: while the dress code appeared to be neutral, the actual impact resulted in the disparate treatment of the employees. They were discriminated against as a result of wearing dreadlocks. The employer failed to reasonably accommodate the religious beliefs of the employees, and had it done so dismissal would not have occurred. The employees illustrated that the wearing of dreadlocks was a sincerely held belief, which was a central tenet of their religion. The employer was made aware of this fact, and despite this, they were dismissed. The employer was unable to illustrate that the rule against the wearing of dreadlocks was fair, and neither could the employer illustrate that this rule was an inherent requirement of the job. It is important to note the trend that has emerged: a.For an employee to succeed in a claim for unfair dismissal on the basis of religious discrimination, the employee will have to establish that the belief is sincerely held. Thus, according to Pillay, employers are required to implement positive measures to reasonably accommodate the religious practices of an employee. b.The employer will have to establish that the religious discrimination is fair or that the rule or practice prohibiting the employee's freedom of religion is in terms of an inherent requirement of the job. In order to justify the dismissal of an employee, the employer has to show that the policy or rule was an inherent requirement of the job. c.Society has evolved. Employers therefore need to reasonably accommodate the sincerely held religious beliefs of employees. "When entering the workplace, employees do not leave behind their personalities, their likes and dislikes, their convictions or their faiths and beliefs, morals, sentiments and, of course, religious beliefs." A concerted effort is therefore required of employers to accommodate diversity and promote religious freedom in the workplace. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a any impairment of dignity | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Reasonable accommodation | |
| 650 | 4 | |a the employer is not expected to experience undue hardship | |
| 650 | 4 | |a sincerely held religious belief - central tenet of their religion | |
| 650 | 4 | |a freedom of religion and culture | |
| 650 | 4 | |a unfair discrimination in the workplace | |
| 650 | 4 | |a gender discrimination | |
| 650 | 4 | |a employer's right to manage his business operations | |
| 650 | 4 | |a automatically unfair dismissals | |
| 650 | 4 | |a test of unfairness - the impact of the discrimination | |
| 650 | 4 | |a and the question of proportionality | |
| 650 | 4 | |a an inherent requirement of a job | |
| 653 | 0 | |a Law in general. Comparative and uniform law. Jurisprudence | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i In |t Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal |d North-West University, 2008 |g 17(2014), 6, Seite 2869-2891 |w (DE-627)385029543 |w (DE-600)2141789-1 |x 17273781 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:17 |g year:2014 |g number:6 |g pages:2869-2891 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/pelj.v17i6.19 |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doaj.org/article/bbe08abd683c4d88ac590304df42ed9f |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://www.nwu.ac.za/sites/www.nwu.ac.za/files/files/p-per/issuepages/2014volume17no6/2014%2817%296Bernard.pdf |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |u https://doaj.org/toc/1727-3781 |y Journal toc |z kostenfrei |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_DOAJ | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-PHA | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_11 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_20 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_22 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_23 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_24 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_31 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_39 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_40 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_60 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_62 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_63 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_65 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_69 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_70 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_73 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_95 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_110 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_120 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_151 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_161 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_206 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_213 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_230 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_285 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_293 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_370 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_602 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2001 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2003 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2005 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2006 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2009 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2010 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2011 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2014 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2055 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2111 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4012 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4035 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4037 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4112 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4125 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4126 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4249 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4305 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4306 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4307 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4313 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4322 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4323 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4324 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4325 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4326 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4335 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4338 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4367 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4700 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4753 | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 17 |j 2014 |e 6 |h 2869-2891 | ||
| author_variant |
r b b rbb |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:17273781:2014----::esnbecomdtoiteoklc |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2014 |
| callnumber-subject-code |
K |
| publishDate |
2014 |
| allfields |
(DE-627)DOAJ024041661 (DE-599)DOAJbbe08abd683c4d88ac590304df42ed9f DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb afr ger eng dut K1-7720 Rowena Bronwen Bernard verfasserin aut Reasonable Accommodation In The Workplace: To Be Or Not To Be? 2014 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Freedom of religion is a fundamental right enshrined in and protected by section 15 of the Constitution. This right allows for the practice of religion without interference from the state and individuals. A question which often arises relates to the extent to which freedom of religion can be exercised in the workplace. Religious practice often extends beyond societal norms, but religious intolerance has proven to be a source of conflict. In the workplace this conflict arises "where the employer's right to the employee's labour and service conflicts with the employee's inability or refusal to render services because of a religious or cultural belief". The courts have played an important role in balancing the rights of the employer to manage his business operations efficiently with the rights of the employee to practice his religious or cultural beliefs. The critical question is how the employer is expected to balance and maintain an orderly, disciplined and efficient workplace whilst accommodating an employee's right to religious freedom. The case of Department of Correctional Services v Police and Prison Civil Rights Union (POPCRU) 2011 32 ILJ 2629 (LAC) is one where the employer's application of rules relating to the dress code of employees impacted on the religious beliefs and practices of five staff. In this note, this decision and the decisions in other recent cases are analysed in order to determine how the courts have dealt with the issue of the reasonable accommodation of religious practices in the workplace. The employer in the POPCRU case was justified in wanting to improve the discipline and standards within the prison. The findings of the LAC and SCA were indeed correct: while the dress code appeared to be neutral, the actual impact resulted in the disparate treatment of the employees. They were discriminated against as a result of wearing dreadlocks. The employer failed to reasonably accommodate the religious beliefs of the employees, and had it done so dismissal would not have occurred. The employees illustrated that the wearing of dreadlocks was a sincerely held belief, which was a central tenet of their religion. The employer was made aware of this fact, and despite this, they were dismissed. The employer was unable to illustrate that the rule against the wearing of dreadlocks was fair, and neither could the employer illustrate that this rule was an inherent requirement of the job. It is important to note the trend that has emerged: a.For an employee to succeed in a claim for unfair dismissal on the basis of religious discrimination, the employee will have to establish that the belief is sincerely held. Thus, according to Pillay, employers are required to implement positive measures to reasonably accommodate the religious practices of an employee. b.The employer will have to establish that the religious discrimination is fair or that the rule or practice prohibiting the employee's freedom of religion is in terms of an inherent requirement of the job. In order to justify the dismissal of an employee, the employer has to show that the policy or rule was an inherent requirement of the job. c.Society has evolved. Employers therefore need to reasonably accommodate the sincerely held religious beliefs of employees. "When entering the workplace, employees do not leave behind their personalities, their likes and dislikes, their convictions or their faiths and beliefs, morals, sentiments and, of course, religious beliefs." A concerted effort is therefore required of employers to accommodate diversity and promote religious freedom in the workplace. any impairment of dignity Reasonable accommodation the employer is not expected to experience undue hardship sincerely held religious belief - central tenet of their religion freedom of religion and culture unfair discrimination in the workplace gender discrimination employer's right to manage his business operations automatically unfair dismissals test of unfairness - the impact of the discrimination and the question of proportionality an inherent requirement of a job Law in general. Comparative and uniform law. Jurisprudence In Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal North-West University, 2008 17(2014), 6, Seite 2869-2891 (DE-627)385029543 (DE-600)2141789-1 17273781 nnns volume:17 year:2014 number:6 pages:2869-2891 http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/pelj.v17i6.19 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/bbe08abd683c4d88ac590304df42ed9f kostenfrei http://www.nwu.ac.za/sites/www.nwu.ac.za/files/files/p-per/issuepages/2014volume17no6/2014%2817%296Bernard.pdf kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1727-3781 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 GBV_ILN_4753 AR 17 2014 6 2869-2891 |
| spelling |
(DE-627)DOAJ024041661 (DE-599)DOAJbbe08abd683c4d88ac590304df42ed9f DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb afr ger eng dut K1-7720 Rowena Bronwen Bernard verfasserin aut Reasonable Accommodation In The Workplace: To Be Or Not To Be? 2014 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Freedom of religion is a fundamental right enshrined in and protected by section 15 of the Constitution. This right allows for the practice of religion without interference from the state and individuals. A question which often arises relates to the extent to which freedom of religion can be exercised in the workplace. Religious practice often extends beyond societal norms, but religious intolerance has proven to be a source of conflict. In the workplace this conflict arises "where the employer's right to the employee's labour and service conflicts with the employee's inability or refusal to render services because of a religious or cultural belief". The courts have played an important role in balancing the rights of the employer to manage his business operations efficiently with the rights of the employee to practice his religious or cultural beliefs. The critical question is how the employer is expected to balance and maintain an orderly, disciplined and efficient workplace whilst accommodating an employee's right to religious freedom. The case of Department of Correctional Services v Police and Prison Civil Rights Union (POPCRU) 2011 32 ILJ 2629 (LAC) is one where the employer's application of rules relating to the dress code of employees impacted on the religious beliefs and practices of five staff. In this note, this decision and the decisions in other recent cases are analysed in order to determine how the courts have dealt with the issue of the reasonable accommodation of religious practices in the workplace. The employer in the POPCRU case was justified in wanting to improve the discipline and standards within the prison. The findings of the LAC and SCA were indeed correct: while the dress code appeared to be neutral, the actual impact resulted in the disparate treatment of the employees. They were discriminated against as a result of wearing dreadlocks. The employer failed to reasonably accommodate the religious beliefs of the employees, and had it done so dismissal would not have occurred. The employees illustrated that the wearing of dreadlocks was a sincerely held belief, which was a central tenet of their religion. The employer was made aware of this fact, and despite this, they were dismissed. The employer was unable to illustrate that the rule against the wearing of dreadlocks was fair, and neither could the employer illustrate that this rule was an inherent requirement of the job. It is important to note the trend that has emerged: a.For an employee to succeed in a claim for unfair dismissal on the basis of religious discrimination, the employee will have to establish that the belief is sincerely held. Thus, according to Pillay, employers are required to implement positive measures to reasonably accommodate the religious practices of an employee. b.The employer will have to establish that the religious discrimination is fair or that the rule or practice prohibiting the employee's freedom of religion is in terms of an inherent requirement of the job. In order to justify the dismissal of an employee, the employer has to show that the policy or rule was an inherent requirement of the job. c.Society has evolved. Employers therefore need to reasonably accommodate the sincerely held religious beliefs of employees. "When entering the workplace, employees do not leave behind their personalities, their likes and dislikes, their convictions or their faiths and beliefs, morals, sentiments and, of course, religious beliefs." A concerted effort is therefore required of employers to accommodate diversity and promote religious freedom in the workplace. any impairment of dignity Reasonable accommodation the employer is not expected to experience undue hardship sincerely held religious belief - central tenet of their religion freedom of religion and culture unfair discrimination in the workplace gender discrimination employer's right to manage his business operations automatically unfair dismissals test of unfairness - the impact of the discrimination and the question of proportionality an inherent requirement of a job Law in general. Comparative and uniform law. Jurisprudence In Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal North-West University, 2008 17(2014), 6, Seite 2869-2891 (DE-627)385029543 (DE-600)2141789-1 17273781 nnns volume:17 year:2014 number:6 pages:2869-2891 http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/pelj.v17i6.19 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/bbe08abd683c4d88ac590304df42ed9f kostenfrei http://www.nwu.ac.za/sites/www.nwu.ac.za/files/files/p-per/issuepages/2014volume17no6/2014%2817%296Bernard.pdf kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1727-3781 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 GBV_ILN_4753 AR 17 2014 6 2869-2891 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
(DE-627)DOAJ024041661 (DE-599)DOAJbbe08abd683c4d88ac590304df42ed9f DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb afr ger eng dut K1-7720 Rowena Bronwen Bernard verfasserin aut Reasonable Accommodation In The Workplace: To Be Or Not To Be? 2014 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Freedom of religion is a fundamental right enshrined in and protected by section 15 of the Constitution. This right allows for the practice of religion without interference from the state and individuals. A question which often arises relates to the extent to which freedom of religion can be exercised in the workplace. Religious practice often extends beyond societal norms, but religious intolerance has proven to be a source of conflict. In the workplace this conflict arises "where the employer's right to the employee's labour and service conflicts with the employee's inability or refusal to render services because of a religious or cultural belief". The courts have played an important role in balancing the rights of the employer to manage his business operations efficiently with the rights of the employee to practice his religious or cultural beliefs. The critical question is how the employer is expected to balance and maintain an orderly, disciplined and efficient workplace whilst accommodating an employee's right to religious freedom. The case of Department of Correctional Services v Police and Prison Civil Rights Union (POPCRU) 2011 32 ILJ 2629 (LAC) is one where the employer's application of rules relating to the dress code of employees impacted on the religious beliefs and practices of five staff. In this note, this decision and the decisions in other recent cases are analysed in order to determine how the courts have dealt with the issue of the reasonable accommodation of religious practices in the workplace. The employer in the POPCRU case was justified in wanting to improve the discipline and standards within the prison. The findings of the LAC and SCA were indeed correct: while the dress code appeared to be neutral, the actual impact resulted in the disparate treatment of the employees. They were discriminated against as a result of wearing dreadlocks. The employer failed to reasonably accommodate the religious beliefs of the employees, and had it done so dismissal would not have occurred. The employees illustrated that the wearing of dreadlocks was a sincerely held belief, which was a central tenet of their religion. The employer was made aware of this fact, and despite this, they were dismissed. The employer was unable to illustrate that the rule against the wearing of dreadlocks was fair, and neither could the employer illustrate that this rule was an inherent requirement of the job. It is important to note the trend that has emerged: a.For an employee to succeed in a claim for unfair dismissal on the basis of religious discrimination, the employee will have to establish that the belief is sincerely held. Thus, according to Pillay, employers are required to implement positive measures to reasonably accommodate the religious practices of an employee. b.The employer will have to establish that the religious discrimination is fair or that the rule or practice prohibiting the employee's freedom of religion is in terms of an inherent requirement of the job. In order to justify the dismissal of an employee, the employer has to show that the policy or rule was an inherent requirement of the job. c.Society has evolved. Employers therefore need to reasonably accommodate the sincerely held religious beliefs of employees. "When entering the workplace, employees do not leave behind their personalities, their likes and dislikes, their convictions or their faiths and beliefs, morals, sentiments and, of course, religious beliefs." A concerted effort is therefore required of employers to accommodate diversity and promote religious freedom in the workplace. any impairment of dignity Reasonable accommodation the employer is not expected to experience undue hardship sincerely held religious belief - central tenet of their religion freedom of religion and culture unfair discrimination in the workplace gender discrimination employer's right to manage his business operations automatically unfair dismissals test of unfairness - the impact of the discrimination and the question of proportionality an inherent requirement of a job Law in general. Comparative and uniform law. Jurisprudence In Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal North-West University, 2008 17(2014), 6, Seite 2869-2891 (DE-627)385029543 (DE-600)2141789-1 17273781 nnns volume:17 year:2014 number:6 pages:2869-2891 http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/pelj.v17i6.19 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/bbe08abd683c4d88ac590304df42ed9f kostenfrei http://www.nwu.ac.za/sites/www.nwu.ac.za/files/files/p-per/issuepages/2014volume17no6/2014%2817%296Bernard.pdf kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1727-3781 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 GBV_ILN_4753 AR 17 2014 6 2869-2891 |
| allfieldsGer |
(DE-627)DOAJ024041661 (DE-599)DOAJbbe08abd683c4d88ac590304df42ed9f DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb afr ger eng dut K1-7720 Rowena Bronwen Bernard verfasserin aut Reasonable Accommodation In The Workplace: To Be Or Not To Be? 2014 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Freedom of religion is a fundamental right enshrined in and protected by section 15 of the Constitution. This right allows for the practice of religion without interference from the state and individuals. A question which often arises relates to the extent to which freedom of religion can be exercised in the workplace. Religious practice often extends beyond societal norms, but religious intolerance has proven to be a source of conflict. In the workplace this conflict arises "where the employer's right to the employee's labour and service conflicts with the employee's inability or refusal to render services because of a religious or cultural belief". The courts have played an important role in balancing the rights of the employer to manage his business operations efficiently with the rights of the employee to practice his religious or cultural beliefs. The critical question is how the employer is expected to balance and maintain an orderly, disciplined and efficient workplace whilst accommodating an employee's right to religious freedom. The case of Department of Correctional Services v Police and Prison Civil Rights Union (POPCRU) 2011 32 ILJ 2629 (LAC) is one where the employer's application of rules relating to the dress code of employees impacted on the religious beliefs and practices of five staff. In this note, this decision and the decisions in other recent cases are analysed in order to determine how the courts have dealt with the issue of the reasonable accommodation of religious practices in the workplace. The employer in the POPCRU case was justified in wanting to improve the discipline and standards within the prison. The findings of the LAC and SCA were indeed correct: while the dress code appeared to be neutral, the actual impact resulted in the disparate treatment of the employees. They were discriminated against as a result of wearing dreadlocks. The employer failed to reasonably accommodate the religious beliefs of the employees, and had it done so dismissal would not have occurred. The employees illustrated that the wearing of dreadlocks was a sincerely held belief, which was a central tenet of their religion. The employer was made aware of this fact, and despite this, they were dismissed. The employer was unable to illustrate that the rule against the wearing of dreadlocks was fair, and neither could the employer illustrate that this rule was an inherent requirement of the job. It is important to note the trend that has emerged: a.For an employee to succeed in a claim for unfair dismissal on the basis of religious discrimination, the employee will have to establish that the belief is sincerely held. Thus, according to Pillay, employers are required to implement positive measures to reasonably accommodate the religious practices of an employee. b.The employer will have to establish that the religious discrimination is fair or that the rule or practice prohibiting the employee's freedom of religion is in terms of an inherent requirement of the job. In order to justify the dismissal of an employee, the employer has to show that the policy or rule was an inherent requirement of the job. c.Society has evolved. Employers therefore need to reasonably accommodate the sincerely held religious beliefs of employees. "When entering the workplace, employees do not leave behind their personalities, their likes and dislikes, their convictions or their faiths and beliefs, morals, sentiments and, of course, religious beliefs." A concerted effort is therefore required of employers to accommodate diversity and promote religious freedom in the workplace. any impairment of dignity Reasonable accommodation the employer is not expected to experience undue hardship sincerely held religious belief - central tenet of their religion freedom of religion and culture unfair discrimination in the workplace gender discrimination employer's right to manage his business operations automatically unfair dismissals test of unfairness - the impact of the discrimination and the question of proportionality an inherent requirement of a job Law in general. Comparative and uniform law. Jurisprudence In Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal North-West University, 2008 17(2014), 6, Seite 2869-2891 (DE-627)385029543 (DE-600)2141789-1 17273781 nnns volume:17 year:2014 number:6 pages:2869-2891 http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/pelj.v17i6.19 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/bbe08abd683c4d88ac590304df42ed9f kostenfrei http://www.nwu.ac.za/sites/www.nwu.ac.za/files/files/p-per/issuepages/2014volume17no6/2014%2817%296Bernard.pdf kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1727-3781 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 GBV_ILN_4753 AR 17 2014 6 2869-2891 |
| allfieldsSound |
(DE-627)DOAJ024041661 (DE-599)DOAJbbe08abd683c4d88ac590304df42ed9f DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb afr ger eng dut K1-7720 Rowena Bronwen Bernard verfasserin aut Reasonable Accommodation In The Workplace: To Be Or Not To Be? 2014 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Freedom of religion is a fundamental right enshrined in and protected by section 15 of the Constitution. This right allows for the practice of religion without interference from the state and individuals. A question which often arises relates to the extent to which freedom of religion can be exercised in the workplace. Religious practice often extends beyond societal norms, but religious intolerance has proven to be a source of conflict. In the workplace this conflict arises "where the employer's right to the employee's labour and service conflicts with the employee's inability or refusal to render services because of a religious or cultural belief". The courts have played an important role in balancing the rights of the employer to manage his business operations efficiently with the rights of the employee to practice his religious or cultural beliefs. The critical question is how the employer is expected to balance and maintain an orderly, disciplined and efficient workplace whilst accommodating an employee's right to religious freedom. The case of Department of Correctional Services v Police and Prison Civil Rights Union (POPCRU) 2011 32 ILJ 2629 (LAC) is one where the employer's application of rules relating to the dress code of employees impacted on the religious beliefs and practices of five staff. In this note, this decision and the decisions in other recent cases are analysed in order to determine how the courts have dealt with the issue of the reasonable accommodation of religious practices in the workplace. The employer in the POPCRU case was justified in wanting to improve the discipline and standards within the prison. The findings of the LAC and SCA were indeed correct: while the dress code appeared to be neutral, the actual impact resulted in the disparate treatment of the employees. They were discriminated against as a result of wearing dreadlocks. The employer failed to reasonably accommodate the religious beliefs of the employees, and had it done so dismissal would not have occurred. The employees illustrated that the wearing of dreadlocks was a sincerely held belief, which was a central tenet of their religion. The employer was made aware of this fact, and despite this, they were dismissed. The employer was unable to illustrate that the rule against the wearing of dreadlocks was fair, and neither could the employer illustrate that this rule was an inherent requirement of the job. It is important to note the trend that has emerged: a.For an employee to succeed in a claim for unfair dismissal on the basis of religious discrimination, the employee will have to establish that the belief is sincerely held. Thus, according to Pillay, employers are required to implement positive measures to reasonably accommodate the religious practices of an employee. b.The employer will have to establish that the religious discrimination is fair or that the rule or practice prohibiting the employee's freedom of religion is in terms of an inherent requirement of the job. In order to justify the dismissal of an employee, the employer has to show that the policy or rule was an inherent requirement of the job. c.Society has evolved. Employers therefore need to reasonably accommodate the sincerely held religious beliefs of employees. "When entering the workplace, employees do not leave behind their personalities, their likes and dislikes, their convictions or their faiths and beliefs, morals, sentiments and, of course, religious beliefs." A concerted effort is therefore required of employers to accommodate diversity and promote religious freedom in the workplace. any impairment of dignity Reasonable accommodation the employer is not expected to experience undue hardship sincerely held religious belief - central tenet of their religion freedom of religion and culture unfair discrimination in the workplace gender discrimination employer's right to manage his business operations automatically unfair dismissals test of unfairness - the impact of the discrimination and the question of proportionality an inherent requirement of a job Law in general. Comparative and uniform law. Jurisprudence In Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal North-West University, 2008 17(2014), 6, Seite 2869-2891 (DE-627)385029543 (DE-600)2141789-1 17273781 nnns volume:17 year:2014 number:6 pages:2869-2891 http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/pelj.v17i6.19 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/bbe08abd683c4d88ac590304df42ed9f kostenfrei http://www.nwu.ac.za/sites/www.nwu.ac.za/files/files/p-per/issuepages/2014volume17no6/2014%2817%296Bernard.pdf kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1727-3781 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 GBV_ILN_4753 AR 17 2014 6 2869-2891 |
| language |
Afrikaans German English Dutch |
| source |
In Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal 17(2014), 6, Seite 2869-2891 volume:17 year:2014 number:6 pages:2869-2891 |
| sourceStr |
In Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal 17(2014), 6, Seite 2869-2891 volume:17 year:2014 number:6 pages:2869-2891 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
any impairment of dignity Reasonable accommodation the employer is not expected to experience undue hardship sincerely held religious belief - central tenet of their religion freedom of religion and culture unfair discrimination in the workplace gender discrimination employer's right to manage his business operations automatically unfair dismissals test of unfairness - the impact of the discrimination and the question of proportionality an inherent requirement of a job Law in general. Comparative and uniform law. Jurisprudence |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
true |
| container_title |
Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Rowena Bronwen Bernard @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2014-01-01T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
385029543 |
| id |
DOAJ024041661 |
| language_de |
Afrikaans deutsch englisch niederlaendisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ024041661</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230502080501.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230226s2014 xx |||||o 00| ||afr c</controlfield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ024041661</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJbbe08abd683c4d88ac590304df42ed9f</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">afr</subfield><subfield code="a">ger</subfield><subfield code="a">eng</subfield><subfield code="a">dut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">K1-7720</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Rowena Bronwen Bernard</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Reasonable Accommodation In The Workplace: To Be Or Not To Be?</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Freedom of religion is a fundamental right enshrined in and protected by section 15 of the Constitution. This right allows for the practice of religion without interference from the state and individuals. A question which often arises relates to the extent to which freedom of religion can be exercised in the workplace. Religious practice often extends beyond societal norms, but religious intolerance has proven to be a source of conflict. In the workplace this conflict arises "where the employer's right to the employee's labour and service conflicts with the employee's inability or refusal to render services because of a religious or cultural belief". The courts have played an important role in balancing the rights of the employer to manage his business operations efficiently with the rights of the employee to practice his religious or cultural beliefs. The critical question is how the employer is expected to balance and maintain an orderly, disciplined and efficient workplace whilst accommodating an employee's right to religious freedom. The case of Department of Correctional Services v Police and Prison Civil Rights Union (POPCRU) 2011 32 ILJ 2629 (LAC) is one where the employer's application of rules relating to the dress code of employees impacted on the religious beliefs and practices of five staff. In this note, this decision and the decisions in other recent cases are analysed in order to determine how the courts have dealt with the issue of the reasonable accommodation of religious practices in the workplace. The employer in the POPCRU case was justified in wanting to improve the discipline and standards within the prison. The findings of the LAC and SCA were indeed correct: while the dress code appeared to be neutral, the actual impact resulted in the disparate treatment of the employees. They were discriminated against as a result of wearing dreadlocks. The employer failed to reasonably accommodate the religious beliefs of the employees, and had it done so dismissal would not have occurred. The employees illustrated that the wearing of dreadlocks was a sincerely held belief, which was a central tenet of their religion. The employer was made aware of this fact, and despite this, they were dismissed. The employer was unable to illustrate that the rule against the wearing of dreadlocks was fair, and neither could the employer illustrate that this rule was an inherent requirement of the job. It is important to note the trend that has emerged: a.For an employee to succeed in a claim for unfair dismissal on the basis of religious discrimination, the employee will have to establish that the belief is sincerely held. Thus, according to Pillay, employers are required to implement positive measures to reasonably accommodate the religious practices of an employee. b.The employer will have to establish that the religious discrimination is fair or that the rule or practice prohibiting the employee's freedom of religion is in terms of an inherent requirement of the job. In order to justify the dismissal of an employee, the employer has to show that the policy or rule was an inherent requirement of the job. c.Society has evolved. Employers therefore need to reasonably accommodate the sincerely held religious beliefs of employees. "When entering the workplace, employees do not leave behind their personalities, their likes and dislikes, their convictions or their faiths and beliefs, morals, sentiments and, of course, religious beliefs." A concerted effort is therefore required of employers to accommodate diversity and promote religious freedom in the workplace.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">any impairment of dignity</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Reasonable accommodation</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">the employer is not expected to experience undue hardship</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">sincerely held religious belief - central tenet of their religion</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">freedom of religion and culture</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">unfair discrimination in the workplace</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">gender discrimination</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">employer's right to manage his business operations</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">automatically unfair dismissals</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">test of unfairness - the impact of the discrimination</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">and the question of proportionality</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">an inherent requirement of a job</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Law in general. Comparative and uniform law. Jurisprudence</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal</subfield><subfield code="d">North-West University, 2008</subfield><subfield code="g">17(2014), 6, Seite 2869-2891</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)385029543</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2141789-1</subfield><subfield code="x">17273781</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:17</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2014</subfield><subfield code="g">number:6</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:2869-2891</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/pelj.v17i6.19</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/bbe08abd683c4d88ac590304df42ed9f</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://www.nwu.ac.za/sites/www.nwu.ac.za/files/files/p-per/issuepages/2014volume17no6/2014%2817%296Bernard.pdf</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1727-3781</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_120</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_370</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2001</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2006</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2010</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4035</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4326</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4335</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4753</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">17</subfield><subfield code="j">2014</subfield><subfield code="e">6</subfield><subfield code="h">2869-2891</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| callnumber-first |
K - Law |
| author |
Rowena Bronwen Bernard |
| spellingShingle |
Rowena Bronwen Bernard misc K1-7720 misc any impairment of dignity misc Reasonable accommodation misc the employer is not expected to experience undue hardship misc sincerely held religious belief - central tenet of their religion misc freedom of religion and culture misc unfair discrimination in the workplace misc gender discrimination misc employer's right to manage his business operations misc automatically unfair dismissals misc test of unfairness - the impact of the discrimination misc and the question of proportionality misc an inherent requirement of a job misc Law in general. Comparative and uniform law. Jurisprudence Reasonable Accommodation In The Workplace: To Be Or Not To Be? |
| authorStr |
Rowena Bronwen Bernard |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)385029543 |
| format |
electronic Article |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut |
| collection |
DOAJ |
| remote_str |
true |
| callnumber-label |
K1-7720 |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
17273781 |
| topic_title |
K1-7720 Reasonable Accommodation In The Workplace: To Be Or Not To Be? any impairment of dignity Reasonable accommodation the employer is not expected to experience undue hardship sincerely held religious belief - central tenet of their religion freedom of religion and culture unfair discrimination in the workplace gender discrimination employer's right to manage his business operations automatically unfair dismissals test of unfairness - the impact of the discrimination and the question of proportionality an inherent requirement of a job |
| topic |
misc K1-7720 misc any impairment of dignity misc Reasonable accommodation misc the employer is not expected to experience undue hardship misc sincerely held religious belief - central tenet of their religion misc freedom of religion and culture misc unfair discrimination in the workplace misc gender discrimination misc employer's right to manage his business operations misc automatically unfair dismissals misc test of unfairness - the impact of the discrimination misc and the question of proportionality misc an inherent requirement of a job misc Law in general. Comparative and uniform law. Jurisprudence |
| topic_unstemmed |
misc K1-7720 misc any impairment of dignity misc Reasonable accommodation misc the employer is not expected to experience undue hardship misc sincerely held religious belief - central tenet of their religion misc freedom of religion and culture misc unfair discrimination in the workplace misc gender discrimination misc employer's right to manage his business operations misc automatically unfair dismissals misc test of unfairness - the impact of the discrimination misc and the question of proportionality misc an inherent requirement of a job misc Law in general. Comparative and uniform law. Jurisprudence |
| topic_browse |
misc K1-7720 misc any impairment of dignity misc Reasonable accommodation misc the employer is not expected to experience undue hardship misc sincerely held religious belief - central tenet of their religion misc freedom of religion and culture misc unfair discrimination in the workplace misc gender discrimination misc employer's right to manage his business operations misc automatically unfair dismissals misc test of unfairness - the impact of the discrimination misc and the question of proportionality misc an inherent requirement of a job misc Law in general. Comparative and uniform law. Jurisprudence |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
cr |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
385029543 |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
true |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)385029543 (DE-600)2141789-1 |
| title |
Reasonable Accommodation In The Workplace: To Be Or Not To Be? |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)DOAJ024041661 (DE-599)DOAJbbe08abd683c4d88ac590304df42ed9f |
| title_full |
Reasonable Accommodation In The Workplace: To Be Or Not To Be? |
| author_sort |
Rowena Bronwen Bernard |
| journal |
Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal |
| journalStr |
Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal |
| callnumber-first-code |
K |
| lang_code |
afr ger eng dut |
| isOA_bool |
true |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2014 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| container_start_page |
2869 |
| author_browse |
Rowena Bronwen Bernard |
| container_volume |
17 |
| class |
K1-7720 |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Rowena Bronwen Bernard |
| title_sort |
reasonable accommodation in the workplace: to be or not to be? |
| callnumber |
K1-7720 |
| title_auth |
Reasonable Accommodation In The Workplace: To Be Or Not To Be? |
| abstract |
Freedom of religion is a fundamental right enshrined in and protected by section 15 of the Constitution. This right allows for the practice of religion without interference from the state and individuals. A question which often arises relates to the extent to which freedom of religion can be exercised in the workplace. Religious practice often extends beyond societal norms, but religious intolerance has proven to be a source of conflict. In the workplace this conflict arises "where the employer's right to the employee's labour and service conflicts with the employee's inability or refusal to render services because of a religious or cultural belief". The courts have played an important role in balancing the rights of the employer to manage his business operations efficiently with the rights of the employee to practice his religious or cultural beliefs. The critical question is how the employer is expected to balance and maintain an orderly, disciplined and efficient workplace whilst accommodating an employee's right to religious freedom. The case of Department of Correctional Services v Police and Prison Civil Rights Union (POPCRU) 2011 32 ILJ 2629 (LAC) is one where the employer's application of rules relating to the dress code of employees impacted on the religious beliefs and practices of five staff. In this note, this decision and the decisions in other recent cases are analysed in order to determine how the courts have dealt with the issue of the reasonable accommodation of religious practices in the workplace. The employer in the POPCRU case was justified in wanting to improve the discipline and standards within the prison. The findings of the LAC and SCA were indeed correct: while the dress code appeared to be neutral, the actual impact resulted in the disparate treatment of the employees. They were discriminated against as a result of wearing dreadlocks. The employer failed to reasonably accommodate the religious beliefs of the employees, and had it done so dismissal would not have occurred. The employees illustrated that the wearing of dreadlocks was a sincerely held belief, which was a central tenet of their religion. The employer was made aware of this fact, and despite this, they were dismissed. The employer was unable to illustrate that the rule against the wearing of dreadlocks was fair, and neither could the employer illustrate that this rule was an inherent requirement of the job. It is important to note the trend that has emerged: a.For an employee to succeed in a claim for unfair dismissal on the basis of religious discrimination, the employee will have to establish that the belief is sincerely held. Thus, according to Pillay, employers are required to implement positive measures to reasonably accommodate the religious practices of an employee. b.The employer will have to establish that the religious discrimination is fair or that the rule or practice prohibiting the employee's freedom of religion is in terms of an inherent requirement of the job. In order to justify the dismissal of an employee, the employer has to show that the policy or rule was an inherent requirement of the job. c.Society has evolved. Employers therefore need to reasonably accommodate the sincerely held religious beliefs of employees. "When entering the workplace, employees do not leave behind their personalities, their likes and dislikes, their convictions or their faiths and beliefs, morals, sentiments and, of course, religious beliefs." A concerted effort is therefore required of employers to accommodate diversity and promote religious freedom in the workplace. |
| abstractGer |
Freedom of religion is a fundamental right enshrined in and protected by section 15 of the Constitution. This right allows for the practice of religion without interference from the state and individuals. A question which often arises relates to the extent to which freedom of religion can be exercised in the workplace. Religious practice often extends beyond societal norms, but religious intolerance has proven to be a source of conflict. In the workplace this conflict arises "where the employer's right to the employee's labour and service conflicts with the employee's inability or refusal to render services because of a religious or cultural belief". The courts have played an important role in balancing the rights of the employer to manage his business operations efficiently with the rights of the employee to practice his religious or cultural beliefs. The critical question is how the employer is expected to balance and maintain an orderly, disciplined and efficient workplace whilst accommodating an employee's right to religious freedom. The case of Department of Correctional Services v Police and Prison Civil Rights Union (POPCRU) 2011 32 ILJ 2629 (LAC) is one where the employer's application of rules relating to the dress code of employees impacted on the religious beliefs and practices of five staff. In this note, this decision and the decisions in other recent cases are analysed in order to determine how the courts have dealt with the issue of the reasonable accommodation of religious practices in the workplace. The employer in the POPCRU case was justified in wanting to improve the discipline and standards within the prison. The findings of the LAC and SCA were indeed correct: while the dress code appeared to be neutral, the actual impact resulted in the disparate treatment of the employees. They were discriminated against as a result of wearing dreadlocks. The employer failed to reasonably accommodate the religious beliefs of the employees, and had it done so dismissal would not have occurred. The employees illustrated that the wearing of dreadlocks was a sincerely held belief, which was a central tenet of their religion. The employer was made aware of this fact, and despite this, they were dismissed. The employer was unable to illustrate that the rule against the wearing of dreadlocks was fair, and neither could the employer illustrate that this rule was an inherent requirement of the job. It is important to note the trend that has emerged: a.For an employee to succeed in a claim for unfair dismissal on the basis of religious discrimination, the employee will have to establish that the belief is sincerely held. Thus, according to Pillay, employers are required to implement positive measures to reasonably accommodate the religious practices of an employee. b.The employer will have to establish that the religious discrimination is fair or that the rule or practice prohibiting the employee's freedom of religion is in terms of an inherent requirement of the job. In order to justify the dismissal of an employee, the employer has to show that the policy or rule was an inherent requirement of the job. c.Society has evolved. Employers therefore need to reasonably accommodate the sincerely held religious beliefs of employees. "When entering the workplace, employees do not leave behind their personalities, their likes and dislikes, their convictions or their faiths and beliefs, morals, sentiments and, of course, religious beliefs." A concerted effort is therefore required of employers to accommodate diversity and promote religious freedom in the workplace. |
| abstract_unstemmed |
Freedom of religion is a fundamental right enshrined in and protected by section 15 of the Constitution. This right allows for the practice of religion without interference from the state and individuals. A question which often arises relates to the extent to which freedom of religion can be exercised in the workplace. Religious practice often extends beyond societal norms, but religious intolerance has proven to be a source of conflict. In the workplace this conflict arises "where the employer's right to the employee's labour and service conflicts with the employee's inability or refusal to render services because of a religious or cultural belief". The courts have played an important role in balancing the rights of the employer to manage his business operations efficiently with the rights of the employee to practice his religious or cultural beliefs. The critical question is how the employer is expected to balance and maintain an orderly, disciplined and efficient workplace whilst accommodating an employee's right to religious freedom. The case of Department of Correctional Services v Police and Prison Civil Rights Union (POPCRU) 2011 32 ILJ 2629 (LAC) is one where the employer's application of rules relating to the dress code of employees impacted on the religious beliefs and practices of five staff. In this note, this decision and the decisions in other recent cases are analysed in order to determine how the courts have dealt with the issue of the reasonable accommodation of religious practices in the workplace. The employer in the POPCRU case was justified in wanting to improve the discipline and standards within the prison. The findings of the LAC and SCA were indeed correct: while the dress code appeared to be neutral, the actual impact resulted in the disparate treatment of the employees. They were discriminated against as a result of wearing dreadlocks. The employer failed to reasonably accommodate the religious beliefs of the employees, and had it done so dismissal would not have occurred. The employees illustrated that the wearing of dreadlocks was a sincerely held belief, which was a central tenet of their religion. The employer was made aware of this fact, and despite this, they were dismissed. The employer was unable to illustrate that the rule against the wearing of dreadlocks was fair, and neither could the employer illustrate that this rule was an inherent requirement of the job. It is important to note the trend that has emerged: a.For an employee to succeed in a claim for unfair dismissal on the basis of religious discrimination, the employee will have to establish that the belief is sincerely held. Thus, according to Pillay, employers are required to implement positive measures to reasonably accommodate the religious practices of an employee. b.The employer will have to establish that the religious discrimination is fair or that the rule or practice prohibiting the employee's freedom of religion is in terms of an inherent requirement of the job. In order to justify the dismissal of an employee, the employer has to show that the policy or rule was an inherent requirement of the job. c.Society has evolved. Employers therefore need to reasonably accommodate the sincerely held religious beliefs of employees. "When entering the workplace, employees do not leave behind their personalities, their likes and dislikes, their convictions or their faiths and beliefs, morals, sentiments and, of course, religious beliefs." A concerted effort is therefore required of employers to accommodate diversity and promote religious freedom in the workplace. |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 GBV_ILN_4753 |
| container_issue |
6 |
| title_short |
Reasonable Accommodation In The Workplace: To Be Or Not To Be? |
| url |
http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/pelj.v17i6.19 https://doaj.org/article/bbe08abd683c4d88ac590304df42ed9f http://www.nwu.ac.za/sites/www.nwu.ac.za/files/files/p-per/issuepages/2014volume17no6/2014%2817%296Bernard.pdf https://doaj.org/toc/1727-3781 |
| remote_bool |
true |
| ppnlink |
385029543 |
| callnumber-subject |
K - General Law |
| mediatype_str_mv |
c |
| isOA_txt |
true |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| callnumber-a |
K1-7720 |
| up_date |
2024-07-03T20:53:25.653Z |
| _version_ |
1803592668970745856 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ024041661</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230502080501.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230226s2014 xx |||||o 00| ||afr c</controlfield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ024041661</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJbbe08abd683c4d88ac590304df42ed9f</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">afr</subfield><subfield code="a">ger</subfield><subfield code="a">eng</subfield><subfield code="a">dut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">K1-7720</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Rowena Bronwen Bernard</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Reasonable Accommodation In The Workplace: To Be Or Not To Be?</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Freedom of religion is a fundamental right enshrined in and protected by section 15 of the Constitution. This right allows for the practice of religion without interference from the state and individuals. A question which often arises relates to the extent to which freedom of religion can be exercised in the workplace. Religious practice often extends beyond societal norms, but religious intolerance has proven to be a source of conflict. In the workplace this conflict arises "where the employer's right to the employee's labour and service conflicts with the employee's inability or refusal to render services because of a religious or cultural belief". The courts have played an important role in balancing the rights of the employer to manage his business operations efficiently with the rights of the employee to practice his religious or cultural beliefs. The critical question is how the employer is expected to balance and maintain an orderly, disciplined and efficient workplace whilst accommodating an employee's right to religious freedom. The case of Department of Correctional Services v Police and Prison Civil Rights Union (POPCRU) 2011 32 ILJ 2629 (LAC) is one where the employer's application of rules relating to the dress code of employees impacted on the religious beliefs and practices of five staff. In this note, this decision and the decisions in other recent cases are analysed in order to determine how the courts have dealt with the issue of the reasonable accommodation of religious practices in the workplace. The employer in the POPCRU case was justified in wanting to improve the discipline and standards within the prison. The findings of the LAC and SCA were indeed correct: while the dress code appeared to be neutral, the actual impact resulted in the disparate treatment of the employees. They were discriminated against as a result of wearing dreadlocks. The employer failed to reasonably accommodate the religious beliefs of the employees, and had it done so dismissal would not have occurred. The employees illustrated that the wearing of dreadlocks was a sincerely held belief, which was a central tenet of their religion. The employer was made aware of this fact, and despite this, they were dismissed. The employer was unable to illustrate that the rule against the wearing of dreadlocks was fair, and neither could the employer illustrate that this rule was an inherent requirement of the job. It is important to note the trend that has emerged: a.For an employee to succeed in a claim for unfair dismissal on the basis of religious discrimination, the employee will have to establish that the belief is sincerely held. Thus, according to Pillay, employers are required to implement positive measures to reasonably accommodate the religious practices of an employee. b.The employer will have to establish that the religious discrimination is fair or that the rule or practice prohibiting the employee's freedom of religion is in terms of an inherent requirement of the job. In order to justify the dismissal of an employee, the employer has to show that the policy or rule was an inherent requirement of the job. c.Society has evolved. Employers therefore need to reasonably accommodate the sincerely held religious beliefs of employees. "When entering the workplace, employees do not leave behind their personalities, their likes and dislikes, their convictions or their faiths and beliefs, morals, sentiments and, of course, religious beliefs." A concerted effort is therefore required of employers to accommodate diversity and promote religious freedom in the workplace.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">any impairment of dignity</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Reasonable accommodation</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">the employer is not expected to experience undue hardship</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">sincerely held religious belief - central tenet of their religion</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">freedom of religion and culture</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">unfair discrimination in the workplace</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">gender discrimination</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">employer's right to manage his business operations</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">automatically unfair dismissals</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">test of unfairness - the impact of the discrimination</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">and the question of proportionality</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">an inherent requirement of a job</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Law in general. Comparative and uniform law. Jurisprudence</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal</subfield><subfield code="d">North-West University, 2008</subfield><subfield code="g">17(2014), 6, Seite 2869-2891</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)385029543</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2141789-1</subfield><subfield code="x">17273781</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:17</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2014</subfield><subfield code="g">number:6</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:2869-2891</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/pelj.v17i6.19</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/bbe08abd683c4d88ac590304df42ed9f</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://www.nwu.ac.za/sites/www.nwu.ac.za/files/files/p-per/issuepages/2014volume17no6/2014%2817%296Bernard.pdf</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1727-3781</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_120</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_370</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2001</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2006</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2010</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4035</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4326</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4335</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4753</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">17</subfield><subfield code="j">2014</subfield><subfield code="e">6</subfield><subfield code="h">2869-2891</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.401886 |