Memela and Another v Ekhamanzi Springs (Pty) Ltd (D 582/08) [2012] ZALCD 9; (2012) 33 ILJ 2911 (LC) (8 June 2012)

Memela and Another v Ekhamanzi Springs (Pty) Ltd (D 582/08) [2012] ZALCD 9; (2012) 33 ILJ 2911 (LC) (8 June 2012)

The court found that the second applicant was dismissed by the respondent for reasons related to her pregnancy, as she was denied entry to the workplace by the landlord's security guards and the respondent failed to intervene or protect her employment. The respondent's reliance on the landlord's code of conduct did not absolve it of its statutory obligations under the Labour Relations Act. The dismissal was automatically unfair in terms of section 187(1)(e) of the LRA. The court awarded compensation equivalent to ten months' remuneration, finding that the second applicant had not found proper alternative employment and that the gravity of the dismissal justified the award. Costs were...

Citation
[2012] ZALCD 9
Parties
Applicant: Noxolo Memela; Applicant: Mandi Mnomiya; Respondent: Ekhamanzi Springs (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 June 2012
Case Number
D 582/08
Procedural Posture
Labour Unfair Dismissal / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
The second applicant's dismissal was automatically unfair under section 187(1)(e) of the LRA. Compensation and costs were awarded.
Judges
Lallie
Legal Topics
Automatically Unfair Dismissal, Pregnancy Discrimination, Section 187 Lra, Employer Obligations, Code of Conduct, Compensation for Unfair Dismissal
Labour Law Automatically Unfair Dismissal Pregnancy Discrimination Section 187 Lra Employer Obligations Code of Conduct Compensation for Unfair 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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Noxolo Memela

Applicant

Mandi Mnomiya

Applicant

Ekhamanzi Springs (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Unfair Dismissal / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second applicant was dismissed by the respondent for reasons related to her pregnancy.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's reliance on the landlord's code of conduct absolved it from liability for the dismissal.
  3. 3 Whether the dismissal constituted an automatically unfair dismissal under section 187(1)(e) of the Labour Relations Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the second applicant was dismissed by the respondent for reasons related to her pregnancy, as she was denied entry to the workplace by the landlord's security guards and the respondent failed to intervene or protect her employment. The respondent's reliance on the landlord's code of conduct did not absolve it of its statutory obligations under the Labour Relations Act. The dismissal was automatically unfair in terms of section 187(1)(e) of the LRA. The court awarded compensation equivalent to ten months' remuneration, finding that the second applicant had not found proper alternative employment and that the gravity of the dismissal justified the award. Costs were...

Court Disposition

The second applicant's dismissal was automatically unfair under section 187(1)(e) of the LRA. Compensation and costs were awarded.

Orders

  • The second applicant's dismissal is declared automatically unfair in terms of section 187(1)(e) of the LRA.
  • The respondent is ordered to pay the second applicant compensation in the amount of R7945.50, equivalent to ten months' remuneration.