Pharmaco Distribution (Pty) Ltd v W (JA104/2015) [2017] ZALAC 48; (2017) 38 ILJ 2496 (LAC) (4 July 2017)

Pharmaco Distribution (Pty) Ltd v W (JA104/2015) [2017] ZALAC 48; (2017) 38 ILJ 2496 (LAC) (4 July 2017)

The court held that clause 17.3 of the respondent's contract of employment, which allowed the employer to require medical and psychological testing at its discretion, was unlawful and unenforceable under section 7(1) of the Employment Equity Act, as consent is not a valid justification for such testing. The evidence showed that the respondent's bipolar disorder was well managed and did not affect her work performance, and that she was singled out for psychiatric assessment solely because of her disability. The employer's actions amounted to unfair discrimination and an automatically unfair dismissal under section 187(1)(f) of the Labour Relations Act. The Labour Court's compensation award...

Citation
[2017] ZALAC 48
Parties
Appellant: Pharmaco Distribution (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Lize Elizabeth Weideman
Court
Labour Appeal Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 July 2017
Case Number
JA104/2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal and Cross Appeal From Labour Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; cross-appeal partially upheld; compensation increased; damages for injuria set aside.
Judges
Davis, Jappie, Kathree-Setiloane
Legal Topics
Automatically Unfair Dismissal, Unfair Discrimination, Employment Equity Act, Medical Testing, Compensation for Dismissal, Injuria
Labour Law Civil Procedure Automatically Unfair Dismissal Unfair Discrimination Employment Equity Act Medical Testing Compensation for Dismissal Injuria

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pharmaco Distribution (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Lize Elizabeth Weideman

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal and Cross Appeal From Labour Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether clause 17.3 of the respondent's contract of employment requiring her to undergo medical testing is enforceable or void.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's dismissal for failing to submit to a medical examination on the employer's instruction was automatically unfair in terms of section 187(1)(f) of the LRA.
  3. 3 Whether the compensation and damages awarded by the Labour Court were just and equitable.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that clause 17.3 of the respondent's contract of employment, which allowed the employer to require medical and psychological testing at its discretion, was unlawful and unenforceable under section 7(1) of the Employment Equity Act, as consent is not a valid justification for such testing. The evidence showed that the respondent's bipolar disorder was well managed and did not affect her work performance, and that she was singled out for psychiatric assessment solely because of her disability. The employer's actions amounted to unfair discrimination and an automatically unfair dismissal under section 187(1)(f) of the Labour Relations Act. The Labour Court's compensation award...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; cross-appeal partially upheld; compensation increased; damages for injuria set aside.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.
  • The cross-appeal is partially upheld, with no order as to costs.