Sexual harassment is defined as unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature – whether verbal, non-verbal, or physical – that violates a person’s dignity. It creates a hostile or intimidating work environment and affects both men and women, often with lasting psychological and professional consequences. Despite increased awareness and evolving workplace policies, sexual harassment remains one of the most persistent and harmful forms of misconduct in the workplace. As organisations align with constitutional values of dignity, equality, and non-discrimination, adopting a zero-tolerance approach has become not only a moral obligation but also a legal necessity. When perpetrators are colleagues, the responsibility falls squarely on employers to respond swiftly and decisively. Failure to do so compromises employee well-being and exposes the organisation to significant legal and reputational risks.

Legal Risks

The Code of Good Practice on the Handling of Sexual Harassment Cases in the Workplace, issued under the Labour Relations Act (LRA) 66 of 1995, obliges employers to ensure a harassment-free work environment. This duty is reinforced by the Basic Conditions of Employment Act (BCEA) 75 of 1997, which mandates fair and safe working conditions for all employees. When employers ignore complaints or respond inadequately, they not only enable continued misconduct but also risk legal liability. Under the LRA, sexual harassment is considered a form of unfair discrimination. Dismissals based on an employee’s refusal to submit to harassment or for lodging a complaint may be deemed automatically unfair under section 187(1)(f), carrying severe legal consequences. In addition, the BCEA requires employers to uphold the dignity and safety of all employees. A failure to act on harassment complaints may constitute a breach of duty of care, potentially resulting in civil claims for damages.

Implementing a Zero-Tolerance Policy

Legal compliance is only part of the solution. A truly effective zero-tolerance policy must be embedded in the workplace culture. Employers should take proactive steps through education, awareness, and the development of clear internal procedures. A zero-tolerance stance means that any instance of sexual harassment – regardless of the perpetrator’s seniority or intent – is treated as serious misconduct. In proven cases, disciplinary action should follow, up to and including dismissal.

For this approach to be effective, the following elements are essential:

  • Clear, accessible reporting channels;
  • Confidential investigations and support mechanisms for victims;
  • Consistent and fair enforcement of disciplinary procedures.

Equally important is fostering an environment where employees feel safe to report misconduct without fear of reprisal. HR professionals, line managers, and organisational leaders all play a vital role in modelling and reinforcing appropriate workplace behaviour. Beyond legal consequences, organisations that fail to take decisive action risk reputational damage, diminished employee morale, and public criticism – particularly in the age of social media scrutiny.

Relevant Case Law

In Campbell Scientific Africa (Pty) Ltd v Simmers and Others (2015), the Labour Court upheld the dismissal of an employee for making sexually inappropriate remarks to a colleague. The court found that the employer acted reasonably, emphasising that sexual harassment undermines the trust essential to the employment relationship.

In Motsamai v Everite Building Products (Pty) Ltd (2010), the Labour Appeal Court criticised an employer for its lenient handling of a harassment complaint. The court stressed that superficial disciplinary action sends the wrong message and fails to uphold the employer’s obligation to ensure a safe workplace.

Most notably, in Media 24 Ltd & Another v Grobler (2005), the Supreme Court of Appeal held an employer vicariously liable for an employee’s harassment of a subordinate. The court ruled that the employer’s failure to take reasonable preventative steps amounted to negligence and ordered compensation for the psychological harm suffered by the victim. This case set a significant precedent for employer accountability.

Conclusion

Sexual harassment in the workplace can never be justified or downplayed. South Africa’s legal framework – particularly the LRA and BCEA – provides employers with the authority and responsibility to safeguard their workforce. The courts have made it clear: tolerance of such conduct is not an option. By instilling a zero-tolerance ethos across all levels of the organisation, employers can ensure not only compliance with the law but also the creation of a workplace that is safe, respectful, and empowering for everyone.