Every February, workplaces rediscover the seasonal tension between professionalism and performative romance.
Flowers arrive. Jokes circulate. Someone inevitably invokes the concept of a “work husband” or “work wife.”
It all sounds harmless, affectionate shorthand for collegial closeness.
Legally speaking, however, the workplace is not governed by sentiment. It is governed by duty, hierarchy and accountability.
It is three things at once: a legal exposure, a governance failure, and a leadership test.
Enforcement has intensified. Employees are more rights iterate. Courts are increasingly impatient with organisational ambivalence.
The real question today is not whether harassment occurs it is whether organisations are prepared, protected and proactive when it does.
At its core, sexual harassment violates dignity and dignity sits at the constitutional centre of employment law.
Its impact manifests in three predictable ways:
- Psychological harm -anxiety, humiliation, professional withdrawal
- Operational instability- fractured teams, eroded trust, lost talent
- Institutional risk- litigation, reputational damage, governance scrutiny
When employers fail to confront the underlying “why,” the consequences compound. Complaints escalate externally. Confidence collapses internally. Credibility weakens structurally.
Once litigation begins, prevention becomes irrelevant.
The inquiry turns to three uncomfortable questions:
- What did leadership know?
- What systems existed?
- Why did action come too late?
The Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998 recognises harassment as a form of unfair discrimination and places positive duties on employers to prevent it.
The Code of Good Practice on the Prevention and Elimination of Harassment (2022) elevated expectations around reporting systems, investigations and protection from victimisation.
The Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 recognises sexual harassment as serious misconduct capable of justifying dismissal where process is fair.
Liability operates along three axes. First, direct misconduct by perpetrators. Second, vicarious exposure where employers fail to act reasonably to prevent contraventions -unless they demonstrate proactive preventative measures.
Third, procedural scrutiny: courts interrogate whether systems were credible before the complaint emerged.
Recent jurisprudence continues to refine the threshold. In La Foy, the Labour Court stressed that harassment must be evaluated objectively, cautioning against conflating subjective offence with legally cognisable discrimination.
Equally, labour jurisprudence more broadly confirms that workplace harassment, whether sexual or otherwise, constitutes unfair discrimination when it undermines protected interests, reflecting a widening judicial sensitivity to dignity-based harms
Recent jurisprudence shows a judiciary applying a consistent three note refrain: severity, accountability, dismissal.
- In Shabangu v CCMA and Others (2025), the Labour Court confirmed that groping and sexual touching represented a “total disregard” for dignity and upheld dismissal as substantively fair.
- In Bergrivier Local Municipality v Swartz (2025), the Court replaced a lenient sanction with summary dismissal, holding that persistent unwanted molestation leaves “no room for sanction short of dismissal.”
- In a related review of the same matter, the Court described a mere suspension as “wholly irrational” given the gravity of misconduct, reinforcing that minimisation will not survive scrutiny.
- The Labour Court similarly reinstated dismissal in a banking-sector case where arbitrators overlooked evidence of intimidation and unwelcome conduct, emphasising adherence to the Code of Good Practice.
- Most recently, the Court set aside a CCMA reinstatement order and endorsed termination of a supervisor who slapped a subordinate on the buttocks, underscoring that visible misconduct and lack of remorse justify dismissal.
- Not every allegation succeeds. In La Foy v Department of Justice (2023), the Labour Court dismissed a harassment claim where managerial actions lacked discriminatory or dignity impairing characteristics, illustrating the evidentiary threshold required.
- In Media 24 Ltd and Another v Grobler (2005), the Constitutional Court confirmed that employers may be held liable where they fail to prevent or adequately address harassment. Inaction carries consequences.
The “Social License” is Earned at the Site
In the mining and construction sectors, a “Code of Conduct” is a document, but Safety Culture is the reality. For an Executive or Site Manager, sexual harassment is not a private grievance; it is a latent site risk no different from a faulty hoist or an unmapped high wall.
True governance in these high-pressure environments requires moving beyond “The Policy” and into Operational Integration:
Sexual harassment in the workplace is neither peripheral nor episodic. It is a structural legal risk demanding informed leadership and deliberate governance. The constitutional and statutory landscape is settled: dignity is not negotiable, equality is not symbolic, and employer accountability is entrenched.
Three truths remain unavoidable:
- Complaints will arise in any sufficiently complex organisation
- Scrutiny will follow – judicial, regulatory, or public
- Preparedness determines outcome -legally and reputationally
And so, as Valentine’s Day approaches, we offer a considered legal opinion:
Workplaces are designed for productivity, not courtship.
Employment contracts are not dating contracts.
HR departments are not relationship counsellors.
Professional candour therefore requires a conclusion grounded in realism rather than seasonal sentiment: romantic experimentation may belong in literature, cinema, or ill-considered messaging threads but the workplace is not that setting.
Organisations that recognise this distinction do more than comply. They lead. And leadership, in this domain, is measured not by policy statements, but by prevention, response, and institutional integrity.
Newsletter Disclaimer: The views, opinions, and legal interpretations expressed herein are subject to change, as they may be influenced by new developments, amendments to the law, or judicial interpretations. While every effort is made to ensure the accuracy and relevance of the content at the time of publication, readers are advised to seek personalised legal counsel to address their specific circumstances.