Manyetsa v New Kleinfontein Gold Mine (Pty) Ltd (JS706/14) [2017] ZALCJHB 404; [2018] 1 BLLR 52 (LC); (2018) 39 ILJ 415 (LC) (7 November 2017)

Manyetsa v New Kleinfontein Gold Mine (Pty) Ltd (JS706/14) [2017] ZALCJHB 404; [2018] 1 BLLR 52 (LC); (2018) 39 ILJ 415 (LC) (7 November 2017)

The court found that the respondent's policy was binding on the applicant and did not contravene section 26(2) of the BCEA or section 6(1) of the EEA. Section 26(2) requires employers to offer suitable alternative employment if practicable, but does not guarantee such employment or paid leave. The respondent made genuine efforts to find alternative positions for the applicant, but none were available or suitable given her skills and the inherent requirements of the available posts. The evidence did not support the applicant's claim of racial discrimination, as differences in treatment were due to the nature of the work and not race. The policy was modelled on the BCEA and was rational and...

Citation
[2017] ZALCJHB 404
Parties
Applicant: Tshegofatso Manyetsa; Respondent: New Kleinfontein Gold Mine (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 November 2017
Case Number
JS706/14
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Applicant's claim dismissed.
Judges
E Tlhotlhalemaje
Legal Topics
Pregnancy Discrimination, Maternity Leave, Employment Equity Act, Basic Conditions of Employment Act, Unfair Labour Practice
Labour Law Pregnancy Discrimination Maternity Leave Employment Equity Act Basic Conditions of Employment Act Unfair Labour Practice

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tshegofatso Manyetsa

Applicant

New Kleinfontein Gold Mine (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's maternity leave policy, specifically clause 5.4, contravenes section 26(2) of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act.
  2. 2 Whether clause 5.4 of the policy constitutes unfair discrimination under section 6(1) of the Employment Equity Act.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent discriminated against the applicant on the grounds of race in the application of the policy.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent's policy was binding on the applicant and did not contravene section 26(2) of the BCEA or section 6(1) of the EEA. Section 26(2) requires employers to offer suitable alternative employment if practicable, but does not guarantee such employment or paid leave. The respondent made genuine efforts to find alternative positions for the applicant, but none were available or suitable given her skills and the inherent requirements of the available posts. The evidence did not support the applicant's claim of racial discrimination, as differences in treatment were due to the nature of the work and not race. The policy was modelled on the BCEA and was rational and...

Court Disposition

Applicant's claim dismissed.

Orders

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