Cupido v GlaxoSmithKline South Africa (Pty) Ltd (LC222/04) [2005] ZALC 8; [2005] 6 BLLR 555 (LC); (2005) 26 ILJ 868 (LC) (18 April 2005)

Cupido v GlaxoSmithKline South Africa (Pty) Ltd (LC222/04) [2005] ZALC 8; [2005] 6 BLLR 555 (LC); (2005) 26 ILJ 868 (LC) (18 April 2005)

The court held that the applicant does not have a directly enforceable individual right to affirmative action under chapter III of the Employment Equity Act; such enforcement is programmatic and reserved for collective action or intervention by the Director General of Labour. The applicant's pleadings, including amendments, were found to be vague, procedurally defective, and failed to disclose a cause of action within the court's jurisdiction. Only claims of unfair discrimination under section 6(1) of the Employment Equity Act are competent before the Labour Court. All four objections in limine raised by the respondent were upheld, resulting in the striking out of the relevant paragraphs...

Citation
[2005] ZALC 8
Parties
Applicant: Dudley Cupido; Respondent: GlaxoSmithKline South Africa (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 April 2005
Case Number
C222/2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Objections in Limine to Pleadings; Interlocutory Ruling
Outcome
All objections in limine upheld; paragraphs of the applicant's statement of case struck out; amendments and applications dismissed; no order as to costs.
Judges
Murphy
Legal Topics
Employment Equity Act, Unfair Discrimination, Affirmative Action, Jurisdiction of Labour Court, Pleading Requirements, Amendment of Pleadings
Labour Law Employment Equity Act Unfair Discrimination Affirmative Action Jurisdiction of Labour Court Pleading Requirements Amendment of Pleadings

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dudley Cupido

Applicant

GlaxoSmithKline South Africa (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Objections in Limine to Pleadings; Interlocutory Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the applicant have a directly enforceable individual right to affirmative action under chapter III of the Employment Equity Act?
  2. 2 Are the applicant's pleadings sufficiently particular and procedurally compliant to sustain a cause of action for unfair discrimination?
  3. 3 Is the Labour Court competent to adjudicate disputes concerning employment equity plans and affirmative action at the instance of an individual?

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicant does not have a directly enforceable individual right to affirmative action under chapter III of the Employment Equity Act; such enforcement is programmatic and reserved for collective action or intervention by the Director General of Labour. The applicant's pleadings, including amendments, were found to be vague, procedurally defective, and failed to disclose a cause of action within the court's jurisdiction. Only claims of unfair discrimination under section 6(1) of the Employment Equity Act are competent before the Labour Court. All four objections in limine raised by the respondent were upheld, resulting in the striking out of the relevant paragraphs...

Court Disposition

All objections in limine upheld; paragraphs of the applicant's statement of case struck out; amendments and applications dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • It is declared that the applicant enjoys no right of direct access to the Labour Court in respect of disputes concerning chapter III of the Employment Equity Act.
  • Paragraphs 7.4, 7.5, 7.7, 7.8, 7.10, 8.4, 8.5, 8.7, 8.8 and 8.10 of the applicant's statement of case dated 13 May 2004 are struck out.