Masubelele v Rand Water (JS141/19) [2021] ZALCJHB 372 (20 October 2021)

Masubelele v Rand Water (JS141/19) [2021] ZALCJHB 372 (20 October 2021)

The court found that the applicant's allegations of unfair discrimination, sexual harassment, and victimisation by her superior were not limited to isolated incidents in 2008 and 2017, but constituted continuing and repetitive conduct. As such, the referral to the CCMA was within the time bar prescribed by section 10(2) of the Employment Equity Act, and condonation was not required. The respondent's reliance on the time bar was misplaced, as ongoing and repetitive acts of discrimination are not subject to the same limitation. The Labour Court therefore has jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter, and the respondent's special plea must fail.

Citation
[2021] ZALCJHB 372
Parties
Applicant: Maureen Makgolo Masubelele; Respondent: Rand Water
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 October 2021
Case Number
JS141/19
Procedural Posture
Special Plea / Jurisdictional Challenge on Special Plea
Outcome
The respondent's special plea is dismissed with costs.
Judges
P Nkutha-Nkontwana
Legal Topics
Employment Equity Act, Unfair Discrimination, Sexual Harassment, Jurisdictional Time Bar
Labour Law Employment Equity Act Unfair Discrimination Sexual Harassment Jurisdictional Time Bar

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maureen Makgolo Masubelele

Applicant

Rand Water

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Special Plea / Jurisdictional Challenge on Special Plea

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Labour Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the applicant's unfair discrimination claim under section 10 of the Employment Equity Act.
  2. 2 Whether the referral to the CCMA was out of time in terms of section 10(2) of the Employment Equity Act.
  3. 3 Whether condonation is required for disputes involving continuing and repetitive acts of discrimination.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's allegations of unfair discrimination, sexual harassment, and victimisation by her superior were not limited to isolated incidents in 2008 and 2017, but constituted continuing and repetitive conduct. As such, the referral to the CCMA was within the time bar prescribed by section 10(2) of the Employment Equity Act, and condonation was not required. The respondent's reliance on the time bar was misplaced, as ongoing and repetitive acts of discrimination are not subject to the same limitation. The Labour Court therefore has jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter, and the respondent's special plea must fail.

Court Disposition

The respondent's special plea is dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The special plea is dismissed.
  • The respondent is ordered to pay the applicant's costs.