M v Sandown Travel Kopanang (Pty) Ltd (J884-16) [2022] ZALCJHB 108 (25 May 2022)

M v Sandown Travel Kopanang (Pty) Ltd (J884-16) [2022] ZALCJHB 108 (25 May 2022)

The court found that the respondent failed to discharge the onus of proving that the applicant's dismissal was for a fair operational reason. The evidence did not support the claim that the applicant was the least qualified for the new positions, nor that her performance was inferior to her peers. The only plausible alternative explanation for her non-selection and dismissal was her pregnancy, which was raised and interrogated during the interview process. The court concluded that the dismissal was automatically unfair in terms of section 187(1)(e) of the Labour Relations Act, as it was for a reason related to pregnancy. The applicant was entitled to compensation equivalent to twenty-four...

Citation
[2022] ZALCJHB 108
Parties
Applicant: K M; Respondent: Sandown Travel Kopanang (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 May 2022
Case Number
J884-16
Procedural Posture
Automatic Unfair Dismissal / Trial Judgment
Outcome
The applicant's dismissal was automatically unfair in terms of section 187(1)(e) of the Labour Relations Act.
Judges
Lagrange
Legal Topics
Automatically Unfair Dismissal, Pregnancy Discrimination, Section 187 Lra, Retrenchment, Compensation, Burden of Proof
Labour Law Automatically Unfair Dismissal Pregnancy Discrimination Section 187 Lra Retrenchment Compensation Burden of Proof

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

K M

Applicant

Sandown Travel Kopanang (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Automatic Unfair Dismissal / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's dismissal was automatically unfair due to pregnancy in terms of section 187(1)(e) of the Labour Relations Act.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent discharged the onus of proving that the dismissal was for a substantively fair operational reason.
  3. 3 Whether the selection process for alternative positions was fair and not tainted by discrimination related to pregnancy.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent failed to discharge the onus of proving that the applicant's dismissal was for a fair operational reason. The evidence did not support the claim that the applicant was the least qualified for the new positions, nor that her performance was inferior to her peers. The only plausible alternative explanation for her non-selection and dismissal was her pregnancy, which was raised and interrogated during the interview process. The court concluded that the dismissal was automatically unfair in terms of section 187(1)(e) of the Labour Relations Act, as it was for a reason related to pregnancy. The applicant was entitled to compensation equivalent to twenty-four...

Court Disposition

The applicant's dismissal was automatically unfair in terms of section 187(1)(e) of the Labour Relations Act.

Orders

  • The dismissal of the Applicant by the Respondent was automatically unfair in terms of Section 187(1)(e) of the Labour Relations Act, 66 of 1995.
  • Within fifteen (15) days of receipt of this judgment, the Respondent must pay the Applicant twenty-four months’ remuneration as compensation, amounting to one hundred and eighty thousand rands (R 180,000.00), calculated on the basis of her salary of R 7,500 per month.