DEPENDING on the context in which it is said, the remark, “’n boer maak ’n plan, but an Indian is born with a plan”, might evoke a chuckle, annoyance or even anger, but seldom indifference. In some cases it could cost someone their job.

A recent arbitration case, Mahas vs Smiths Manufacturing, dealt with the fate of a manager who had been dismissed for allegedly making racially inflammatory remarks.

During a meeting with employees, Mahas, a dispatch manager, was addressing workers. After addressing a particular problem he made the allegedly offending comment.

Although Mahas had made no reference to black workers, it became apparent that his utterances were not well received when a black worker asked Mahas why he had referred to himself as an Indian, instead of, apparently, as a South African. According to Mahas he had meant no offence.

Unfortunately, matters became even worse when Mahas tried to explain himself. He mentioned that race classification was still prevalent in official forms and referred to the requirements of the Employment Equity Act.

According to the evidence of some witnesses, he allegedly went further by stating that even the employer’s clocking system was racially “batched” as the number with which the clocking-in numbers started differed, with an eight for whites, seven for Indians, six for coloureds and two for blacks.

The workers understood this as an indication by Mahas that, according to statistics, the intelligence of blacks was inferior to that of the other racial groups.

The employer charged Mahas with racial discrimination in that he had made remarks of an inflammatory nature. He was dismissed.

The arbitrator found that there was no evidence to show that Mahas had at any stage suggested that the company rated black workers to be intellectually inferior. There appeared to be confusion between his initial utterances about the ingenuity of Indians and the number-batching of clock cards.

The arbitrator remarked that the matter should have been properly investigated before demanding from Mahas answers to allegations of racism. He also found that the disciplinary procedure had been unfair. Mahas was reinstated with retrospective effect.

The case illustrates how extremely sensitive racial issues in the workplace can be and how easily misunderstandings can arise.

The case also illustrates the importance of a proper investigation before disciplinary charges of any kind are brought against an employee. www.labourwise.co.za.