Pretoria - A human resources co-ordinator’s love for high heel shoes as part of the elegant look she prefers came under the legal spotlight after she was fired from the mine where she worked.
The reason given for the dismissal was that the safety policy demands the wearing of flat shoes on the premises.
Litshani Mofokeng’s love for her heels caused her a lot of unhappiness when she was told she may no longer wear them around Tharisa Minerals, where she worked.
While she did comply with the policy and wore her flats, she approached other female employees and a trade union leader, voicing her unhappiness.
Her attempts to lobby for support were viewed as gross insubordination and incitement, resulting in a disciplinary enquiry. She was found guilty and dismissed. She approached the CCMA, but the commissioner found her dismissal fair.
But the Labour Court in Johannesburg found her dismissal to be substantively unfair. The mine was instructed to reinstate her backdating from October 2017, when she was fired.
Judge Graham Moshoana found there was no evidence of persistence and wilfulness on the part of Mofokeng not to comply with the policy, nor that she incited any of her colleagues to engage in strike action
In the opening to his judgment, Judge Moshoana said: “This is a case that pits sartorial elegance against health and safety at the workplace. Researchers completed biomechanical analysis and found high heels gave women a more feminine gait. The raised heel makes the woman’s stride shorter and increases the rotation and tilt of the woman’s hips.”
The court was told the mine had adopted a policy that no high heels or sleepwear was allowed on its premises. Thus, when Mofokeng was spotted in her high heels in the main office building, she was in hot water.
She was told about the dangers of wearing high heels on the premises and that only flat shoes were tolerated. Mofokeng attempted to plead her case to retain her femininity at the mine, but management would have none of it.
It led to a disciplinary hearing and her being fired for “incitement.” Her union leader refused to come to her aid.
Mofokeng told the court she had always worn her high heels at work in the past, without any problems.
The CCMA agreed with the finding that she be fired, but the judge was a lot more sympathetic.
He referred to the Ukraine ministry of defence, which faced criticism for its requirement that female soldiers march in high heels in a parade last August. The dress code was deemed sexist and harmful to the health of the soldiers.
“The controversy was why so many women choose to wear uncomfortable and potentially dangerous heels.”
The judge said Mofokeng, as an employee, had the right to remonstrate against any authority, as long as she did it within the law, which she did.
Pretoria News