Boeyens v Murray and Roberts (Pty) Ltd (Projects) (JS381/15) [2016] ZALCJHB 163 (4 February 2016)

Boeyens v Murray and Roberts (Pty) Ltd (Projects) (JS381/15) [2016] ZALCJHB 163 (4 February 2016)

The Labour Court found that the applicant's claims for automatically unfair dismissal, occupational detriment, and discrimination for exercising a right under the Employment Equity Act were not properly referred to conciliation and thus could not be adjudicated. Only the unfair discrimination claim was conciliated and thus adjudicable. The evidence did not support a finding of unfair discrimination on the basis of illness, as the employer accommodated the applicant's medical condition. The claim of discrimination based on protected disclosure was not sustainable, as protected disclosure is not a listed or arbitrary ground under the Employment Equity Act. The applicant's remedy lay in...

Citation
[2016] ZALCJHB 163
Parties
Applicant: Jan Boeyens; Respondent: Murray & Roberts (Pty) Ltd (Projects)
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 February 2016
Case Number
JS 381/15
Procedural Posture
Default Judgment / Application for Default Judgment After Referral and Failed Conciliation
Outcome
All claims by the applicant are dismissed. No order as to costs.
Judges
Everett
Legal Topics
Unfair Discrimination, Automatically Unfair Dismissal, Protected Disclosure, Occupational Detriment, Conciliation Requirement
Labour Law Unfair Discrimination Automatically Unfair Dismissal Protected Disclosure Occupational Detriment Conciliation Requirement

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jan Boeyens

Applicant

Murray & Roberts (Pty) Ltd (Projects)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Default Judgment / Application for Default Judgment After Referral and Failed Conciliation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was unfairly discriminated against on the basis of illness or protected disclosure.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was automatically unfairly dismissed due to protected disclosure or discrimination.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant suffered an occupational detriment under the Protected Disclosures Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Court found that the applicant's claims for automatically unfair dismissal, occupational detriment, and discrimination for exercising a right under the Employment Equity Act were not properly referred to conciliation and thus could not be adjudicated. Only the unfair discrimination claim was conciliated and thus adjudicable. The evidence did not support a finding of unfair discrimination on the basis of illness, as the employer accommodated the applicant's medical condition. The claim of discrimination based on protected disclosure was not sustainable, as protected disclosure is not a listed or arbitrary ground under the Employment Equity Act. The applicant's remedy lay in...

Court Disposition

All claims by the applicant are dismissed. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • The applicant’s claim of unfair discrimination on basis of illness and the protected disclosure he made is dismissed.
  • The applicant’s claim of an automatically unfair dismissal on arbitrary grounds, due to a protected disclosure and on the basis of discrimination is dismissed.