What if an employee calls a manager a “white racist”, is dismissal an appropriate sanction?

Good day everyone, and welcome to another discussion in our “What if” series, where we bring you insights in the format of a “what if” question on the ever-evolving landscape of employment law. I am Ross Simon from Maserumule Corporate Employment Law, and in today’s discussion we will be Good day everyone, and welcome to another discussion in our “What if” series, where we bring you insights, in the format of a “what if” question, on the ever-evolving landscape of employment law.

I am WP Moolman from Maserumule Corporate Employment Law, and in today’s discussion we will be unpacking a question that sounds simple but really isn't:
What if an employee calls a manager a “white racist”….is dismissal an appropriate sanction?

The Labour Appeal Court wrestled with exactly this in a case involving Namaqua Wines, handed down in April 2026. And the answer it gave is one every employer who's ever handled a race-related disciplinary needs to understand. Let's get into it.

Vuyani Qomoyi was a general worker at Namaqua Wines and a union shopsteward. In August 2021, a bottling manager, Mr Meyer — who is white — called Qomoyi to the HR office to "witness something."

That something turned out to be the dismissal of another African colleague, a union member. As shopsteward, Qomoyi hadn't been part of that process at all. He believed the dismissal was unfair, and in the heated exchange that followed, he pointed at Meyer and called him a "white racist" — saying, in effect, you're firing black people. It was captured on video, and he repeated it several times.

Qomoyi was suspended, disciplined, and ultimately dismissed for one thing: "displaying racist behaviour."

The union took it to the CCMA. The commissioner found the dismissal fair. The Labour Court agreed and dismissed the review — with costs. So by the time it reached the Labour Appeal Court, Qomoyi had lost twice.

Now here's where it gets interesting. There's a well-established test from a Constitutional Court case for whether words are racist. And it's an objective test: would a reasonable, objective, and informed person — hearing those words, on the correct facts, and in context — perceive them as racist?

Context is everything. You don't start from the assumption that the word "racist" automatically equals racist behaviour.

And the Court found that neither the commissioner nor the Labour Court actually applied that test properly. The commissioner presumed Qomoyi was guilty, labelled it a "racist tirade," and then spent his time rejecting Qomoyi's justifications — which effectively reversed the onus. But the law is clear: it's the employer who must prove the dismissal was for a fair reason, not the employee who must prove innocence.

So the Appeal Court applied the test itself. And on the correct facts, its conclusion was this: calling Meyer a "white racist," in that moment, was not racist behaviour. Why? Because of context and history. Qomoyi said it seconds after watching a black colleague dismissed, as he saw it, unfairly. Given the power dynamic — a black general worker versus a white manager — and given this country's history, the Court found it inconceivable that Qomoyi was asserting racial superiority or devaluing Meyer because he was white. He was venting frustration at how black workers were being treated. The Court treated it as fair comment — an honest opinion based on a true fact: a worker had been dismissed without his shopsteward present.

The Court also noted the offence wasn't even a dismissible one under Namaqua's own disciplinary code, and that there'd been an unfair splitting of charges.

The result: the appeal was upheld, the dismissal declared substantively unfair, and Namaqua was ordered to reinstate Qomoyi retrospectively — back to the date of his dismissal. No order as to costs.

So what should employers take from this?

One — calling someone a "racist" is not automatically racist behaviour, and it's not automatically a dismissible offence. You have to apply the objective test: in context, on the true facts, would a reasonable, informed person see it as racist?

Two — context and history carry real legal weight. Who said it, to whom, in what circumstances, and against what backdrop. Don't treat these as open-and-shut just because an inflammatory word was used.

Three — remember where the onus sits. It's on you, the employer, to prove a fair reason. Don't build your case around making the employee justify themselves.

Four — investigate the underlying complaint. When Qomoyi alleged black workers were being dismissed without representation, that deserved attention. Punishing the accuser instead of investigating the allegation was a serious misstep.

And five — a heat-of-the-moment remark may be better resolved through a proper process, even an exchange of apologies, than by reaching straight for dismissal. And always check the sanction actually fits your own code.

Words spoken in anger are rarely simple. And in employment law, context isn't a footnote — it's the whole case.

That brings us to the end of this week’s discussion.

Thank you for joining us. I hope you have found our discussion informative.

If you have any questions or comments, we would love to hear from you — you can find us on social media, or email me at wp@masconsulting.co.za.

Until next time — good-bye.