Wanatu’s language policy requirement for proficiency in the Afrikaans language is central to their business model, and has sparked significant debate. Wanatu operates in Centurion and Pretoria.
One of Wanatu’s key value propositions, as stated on its website, is “Restoring dignity in our communities’ jobs in Afrikaans” (direct translation from the website).
Language equality in employment
The use and preservation of all languages is commendable. Language fosters a sense of shared identity among speakers. However, balancing this with the rights of others to use their own language is important.
Protection of dignity and equality is essential. This balance is significant, particularly in the workplace. We do not exist as isolated communities; we are interconnected. The absolute protection of any person’s language is undesirable. Respect for others is key to harmonious coexistence.
Most e-hailing platforms appoint drivers as independent contractors. However, media reports suggest Wanatu employs its drivers. If drivers are employees, Wanatu’s language proficiency practices raise constitutional and labour law issues. The company’s right to trade in a language of choice must be balanced.
The constitution protects everyone’s right to use their chosen language. This also implicates fair labour practices and the human dignity of job seekers.
Balancing inclusivity and equality
Section 9(4) of the Constitution and section 6(1) of the Employment Equity Act prohibit discrimination based on language. If Wanatu requires Afrikaans proficiency, this could violate the equality clause and EEA.
Excluding drivers based on language could be unfair discrimination. Wanatu must prove that language-based recruitment practices are rational and justifiable. Although case law on language discrimination is limited, a few cases justify language requirements.
Stojce vs University of KZN-Natal (2006) is one example. In this case, a senior lecturer candidate was not appointed due to difficulties communicating in English. The Labour Court found that effective communication in English was required.
The De Bruyn vs Metorex (2021) case also upheld language requirements. Metorex’s requirement for Chinese-speaking managers was rational, based on business needs.
Afrikaans language requirement
In both cases, the courts justified language proficiency when it directly linked to job performance. Wanatu must prove that employing Afrikaans-speaking drivers is necessary for the job.
A legitimate commercial rationale alone cannot justify bypassing the EEA. Since Wanatu serves non-Afrikaans-speaking users, Afrikaans proficiency may not be essential. If Wanatu hires drivers as independent contractors, the EEA wouldn’t apply. However, Wanatu language policy could still face constitutional scrutiny.
The survival of any language depends on its use and transmission. In South Africa’s multicultural society, we must encourage language preservation and promotion. Efforts to promote languages should balance diversity, inclusivity, and equality. Wanatu’s Afrikaans-centric model raises questions about language policies in the workplace.
Striking a balance between language policies and equality is crucial. It advances the shared goal of a united South Africa where all languages are valued.
 |
 |
| Sandile July | Head | Employment | mail me | | Nonkosazana Nkosi | Senior associate | mail me | |
| | Werksmans Attorneys | | |
