Eagle Canyon Estate: Security vs. Dignity - A Domestic Workers' Rights Victory
Eagle Canyon Estate: Security vs. Dignity - A Domestic Workers' Rights Victory
Overview
Body and bag searches of domestic workers and garden staff at Eagle Canyon Golf Estate were recently called into question and more recently found to be unconstitutional after a homeowner claimed that the body and bag searches were racist and xenophobic. This resulted in the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) becoming heavily involved.
The Facts
Eagle Canyon Golf Estate stood accused of:
Racist and Xenophobic behaviour by allegedly targeting black people and foreign nationals;
Discriminatory behaviour by allegedly singling out domestic workers based on their occupation;
Violating privacy by carrying out unwarranted searches; and
Abusing individuals dignity by treating staff like criminals.
The Eagle Canyon Golf Estate homeowners' association countered that the searches were:
Periodic and random and not targeted at specific individuals;
Limited to bags only and that body searches were not performed;
Lawful as they were permitted under a disclaimer displayed at the estate entrance.
The SAHRC and Its Powers
As this complaint was lodged at the The South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) it is necessary to understand the nature of the SAHRC as it differs from a Traditional Court. To this end, decisions of the SAHRC are not exactly binding in the same that Court decisions are. Whilst the SAHRC plays a crucial role in upholding democracy it doesn't have the direct power to enforce its rulings. However, its findings do carry weight and influence as set out hereunder:
The SAHRC can investigate complaints of human rights violations;
They can issue recommendations to parties found to be violating human rights. They can also issue “directives (as was done in this case); and
If parties don't comply with directives, the SAHRC can take them to court to enforce their recommendations.
With all this being said, whilst it is clear that decisions of the SAHRC are not easily enforceable, it relies heavily on moral persuasion and public pressure to achieve compliance. Their findings are widely reported and can damage the reputation of institutions found to be violating human rights.
The SAHRC's Findings
In this matter, the SAHRC found that the searches violated the domestic workers' rights under the South African Constitution, including:
Section 9: Equality before the law.
Section 10: Right to dignity.
Section 14: Right to privacy, including protection from unreasonable searches.
It was further reported that these searches humiliated the staff, disseminated social inequalities and reinforced stereotypes.
The Ruling
The SAHRC directed the homeowners' association to:
Halt the searches;
Develop new security measures that respect human rights; and
Report back on the new protocols within two months.
Conclusion
To conclude, the case sets a precedent for domestic worker rights in South Africa. It emphasizes that security practices cannot come at the expense of fundamental human rights. The onus is therefore on employers and estates to find solutions that balance security needs with respect for dignity and privacy.
The Homeowners' Association may choose to follow the SAHRC's recommendations or risk being taken to court.
Written by: Garion Malherbe