De Beer v Allies Meat Market (C206/2007) [2010] ZALC 229 (29 March 2010)

De Beer v Allies Meat Market (C206/2007) [2010] ZALC 229 (29 March 2010)

The court found that the probabilities favoured the respondent's version of events. The evidence indicated that the applicant was not dismissed but rather resigned after a disagreement on 15 March 2007. The hiring of a third cashier was due to operational requirements and not as a replacement for the applicant following her pregnancy notification. The applicant's continued work after the alleged dismissal and her failure to raise the issue with the employer at the time undermined her claim. The court concluded that there was no dismissal, and therefore, no automatically unfair dismissal on the ground of pregnancy under section 187(1)(e) of the Labour Relations Act.

Citation
[2010] ZALC 229
Parties
Applicant: Nasiefa De Beer; Respondent: Allies Meat Market
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 March 2010
Case Number
C206/2007
Procedural Posture
Labour Trial / Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed. No order as to costs.
Judges
Cheadle
Legal Topics
Automatically Unfair Dismissal, Pregnancy Discrimination, Section 187 Lra, Resignation Vs Dismissal
Labour Law Automatically Unfair Dismissal Pregnancy Discrimination Section 187 Lra Resignation Vs Dismissal

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nasiefa De Beer

Applicant

Allies Meat Market

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Trial / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was dismissed or resigned from employment.
  2. 2 Whether the alleged dismissal was automatically unfair on the ground of pregnancy under section 187(1)(e) of the Labour Relations Act.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's conduct amounted to discrimination based on pregnancy.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the probabilities favoured the respondent's version of events. The evidence indicated that the applicant was not dismissed but rather resigned after a disagreement on 15 March 2007. The hiring of a third cashier was due to operational requirements and not as a replacement for the applicant following her pregnancy notification. The applicant's continued work after the alleged dismissal and her failure to raise the issue with the employer at the time undermined her claim. The court concluded that there was no dismissal, and therefore, no automatically unfair dismissal on the ground of pregnancy under section 187(1)(e) of the Labour Relations Act.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • The applicant's claim is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.