Machimane v Mashangoane and Others (J 2382/10) [2010] ZALC 304 (9 December 2010)

Machimane v Mashangoane and Others (J 2382/10) [2010] ZALC 304 (9 December 2010)

The applicant failed to establish urgency in respect of the sexual harassment allegations, which were vague, unsupported by specific incidents, and raised only after a dispute about accommodation. The court accepted the principal's version on the probabilities. Regarding the written warnings, the principal did not comply with the procedural requirements of the disciplinary code, as no hearing was afforded to the applicant. However, the harm suffered by the applicant is not irreparable, as the warnings will lapse after six months and she remains employed. The applicant has an adequate alternative remedy under the Labour Relations Act by referring the dispute to the Education Labour...

Citation
[2010] ZALC 304
Parties
Applicant: Wendy Machimane; Respondent: Simon R Mashangoane; Respondent: Helen Franz Special School; Respondent: Dept of Education, Limpopo Provincial Government; Respondent: MEC, Dept of Education, Limpopo Provincial Government; Respondent: Head of the Department of Education, Limpopo Provincial Government
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 December 2010
Case Number
J 2382/10
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Interim Relief
Outcome
Application dismissed. No order as to costs.
Judges
Steenkamp
Legal Topics
Unfair Labour Practice, Disciplinary Procedure, Sexual Harassment, Interim Interdict
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Labour Practice Disciplinary Procedure Sexual Harassment Interim Interdict

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 5 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wendy Machimane

Applicant

Simon R Mashangoane

Respondent

Helen Franz Special School

Respondent

Dept of Education, Limpopo Provincial Government

Respondent

MEC, Dept of Education, Limpopo Provincial Government

Respondent

Head of the Department of Education, Limpopo Provincial Government

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Interim Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for urgent relief is justified.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has established a prima facie case of sexual harassment.
  3. 3 Whether the written warnings issued to the applicant were unlawful or irregular.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to establish urgency in respect of the sexual harassment allegations, which were vague, unsupported by specific incidents, and raised only after a dispute about accommodation. The court accepted the principal's version on the probabilities. Regarding the written warnings, the principal did not comply with the procedural requirements of the disciplinary code, as no hearing was afforded to the applicant. However, the harm suffered by the applicant is not irreparable, as the warnings will lapse after six months and she remains employed. The applicant has an adequate alternative remedy under the Labour Relations Act by referring the dispute to the Education Labour...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.