Biggar v City of Johannesburg, Emergency Management Services (JS 232/09) [2011] ZALCJHB 5; [2011] 6 BLLR 577 (LC); (2011) 32 ILJ 1665 (LC) (10 February 2011)

Biggar v City of Johannesburg, Emergency Management Services (JS 232/09) [2011] ZALCJHB 5; [2011] 6 BLLR 577 (LC); (2011) 32 ILJ 1665 (LC) (10 February 2011)

The court found that the applicant was subjected to sustained racial harassment by colleagues at the employer's residential premises, and that the employer failed to take adequate and reasonably practicable steps to eliminate such conduct, as required by the Employment Equity Act. The employer's response was ad hoc and inconclusive, and disciplinary action was selectively instituted only against the applicant, not against white colleagues involved in the same incident. The court held that the employer's failure constituted unfair discrimination. The residential premises were sufficiently linked to the workplace, and the employer's disciplinary powers extended to conduct occurring there....

Citation
[2011] ZALCJHB 5
Parties
Applicant: Victor Biggar; Respondent: City of Johannesburg, Emergency Management Services
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 February 2011
Case Number
JS 232/09
Procedural Posture
Unfair Discrimination Application / Default Judgment; Unopposed Roll
Outcome
Application granted. The respondent was found to have unfairly discriminated against the applicant and ordered to pay compensation, review transfer opportunities, and implement remedial measures.
Judges
Lagrange
Legal Topics
Employment Equity Act, Unfair Discrimination, Racial Harassment, Disciplinary Procedure, Constitutional Rights, Remedies for Discrimination
Labour Law Constitutional Law Employment Equity Act Unfair Discrimination Racial Harassment Disciplinary Procedure Constitutional Rights Remedies for Discrimination

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Victor Biggar

Applicant

City of Johannesburg, Emergency Management Services

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Unfair Discrimination Application / Default Judgment; Unopposed Roll

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent unfairly discriminated against the applicant by failing to prevent racial harassment by colleagues.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent unfairly discriminated against the applicant by instituting disciplinary action only against him and not against white colleagues involved in the same incident.
  3. 3 Whether the employer took all necessary and reasonably practicable steps to eliminate racial harassment as required by the Employment Equity Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant was subjected to sustained racial harassment by colleagues at the employer's residential premises, and that the employer failed to take adequate and reasonably practicable steps to eliminate such conduct, as required by the Employment Equity Act. The employer's response was ad hoc and inconclusive, and disciplinary action was selectively instituted only against the applicant, not against white colleagues involved in the same incident. The court held that the employer's failure constituted unfair discrimination. The residential premises were sufficiently linked to the workplace, and the employer's disciplinary powers extended to conduct occurring there....

Court Disposition

Application granted. The respondent was found to have unfairly discriminated against the applicant and ordered to pay compensation, review transfer opportunities, and implement remedial measures.

Orders

  • The respondent must pay the applicant two months' salary at his current rate for failing to prevent racial harassment in 2006 and 2007.
  • The respondent must pay the applicant one month's salary at his current rate for unfair disciplinary action arising from the January 2007 incident.