Ndudula and Others v Metrorail PRASA (Western Cape) (C1012/2015) [2017] ZALCCT 12; [2017] 7 BLLR 706 (LC); (2017) 38 ILJ 2565 (LC) (30 March 2017)

Ndudula and Others v Metrorail PRASA (Western Cape) (C1012/2015) [2017] ZALCCT 12; [2017] 7 BLLR 706 (LC); (2017) 38 ILJ 2565 (LC) (30 March 2017)

The court held that the applicants failed to plead or rely upon any listed or analogous ground for discrimination as required by section 6(1) of the Employment Equity Act. The phrase 'any other arbitrary ground' does not create a new category of discrimination but refers to unlisted grounds analogous to those listed. The applicants did not identify or plead any such ground, and mere error in salary scale, subsequently corrected, does not constitute unfair discrimination. The burden of proof for discrimination on an arbitrary ground requires the complainant to specify the ground and prove that the conduct is irrational, discriminatory, and unfair. As the applicants did not meet these...

Citation
[2017] ZALCCT 12
Parties
Applicant: S Ndudula & 17 Others; Respondent: Metrorail – PRASA (Western Cape)
Court
Labour Court Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 March 2017
Case Number
C1012/2015
Procedural Posture
Unfair Discrimination Application / Judgment After Hearing on Merits
Outcome
Application dismissed; no order as to costs.
Judges
Coetzee
Legal Topics
Employment Equity Act, Unfair Discrimination, Burden of Proof, Wage Differentiation, Statutory Interpretation
Labour Law Employment Equity Act Unfair Discrimination Burden of Proof Wage Differentiation Statutory Interpretation

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 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S Ndudula & 17 Others

Applicant

Metrorail – PRASA (Western Cape)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Unfair Discrimination Application / Judgment After Hearing on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants suffered unfair discrimination in terms of section 6(1) of the Employment Equity Act due to wage differentiation.
  2. 2 Whether the phrase 'any other arbitrary ground' in section 6(1) creates a new category of discrimination or refers to unlisted grounds analogous to listed grounds.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants pleaded and proved a valid ground for discrimination as required by the Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicants failed to plead or rely upon any listed or analogous ground for discrimination as required by section 6(1) of the Employment Equity Act. The phrase 'any other arbitrary ground' does not create a new category of discrimination but refers to unlisted grounds analogous to those listed. The applicants did not identify or plead any such ground, and mere error in salary scale, subsequently corrected, does not constitute unfair discrimination. The burden of proof for discrimination on an arbitrary ground requires the complainant to specify the ground and prove that the conduct is irrational, discriminatory, and unfair. As the applicants did not meet these...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

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