Samancor Chrome Ltd (Eastern Chrome Mines) v NUM obo Mahlangu and Others (J817/15) [2018] ZALCJHB 435; [2019] 1 BLLR 82 (LC) (29 August 2018)

Samancor Chrome Ltd (Eastern Chrome Mines) v NUM obo Mahlangu and Others (J817/15) [2018] ZALCJHB 435; [2019] 1 BLLR 82 (LC) (29 August 2018)

The court found that the central factual controversy was whether Ms Mahlangu was placed on unpaid leave prior to maternity leave because no alternative position could be found, or because it was her second pregnancy in three years. On the evidence, the employer had made reasonable attempts to find alternative placement, and the unpaid leave was consistent with the company's policy and the BCEA. The arbitrator erred in accepting the employee's version, which was not properly put to the employer's witness, and in making findings beyond the scope of the complaint. The employer discharged its burden under section 11 of the EEA, and there was no unfair discrimination. The arbitrator's order to...

Citation
[2018] ZALCJHB 435
Parties
Applicant: Samancor Chrome Ltd (Eastern Chrome Mines); Respondent: NUM obo Khomotjo Mahlangu; Respondent: CCMA; Respondent: Mahlemelele Christopher Mello
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 August 2018
Case Number
J817/15
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From CCMA Arbitration Award Under S 10(8) Employment Equity Act
Outcome
Appeal upheld; complaint of unfair discrimination dismissed; no order as to costs.
Judges
Steenkamp
Legal Topics
Employment Equity Act, Unfair Discrimination, Pregnancy Policy, Burden of Proof, Remedies in Labour Law
Labour Law Civil Procedure Employment Equity Act Unfair Discrimination Pregnancy Policy Burden of Proof Remedies in Labour Law

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samancor Chrome Ltd (Eastern Chrome Mines)

Applicant

NUM obo Khomotjo Mahlangu

Respondent

CCMA

Respondent

Mahlemelele Christopher Mello

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From CCMA Arbitration Award Under S 10(8) Employment Equity Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the employer's conduct in placing the employee on unpaid leave prior to maternity leave unfair discrimination on the ground of pregnancy?
  2. 2 Was the arbitrator's order to redraft the employer's pregnancy policy ultra vires and beyond the relief sought?
  3. 3 Did the employer discharge the burden of proof under section 11 of the Employment Equity Act?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the central factual controversy was whether Ms Mahlangu was placed on unpaid leave prior to maternity leave because no alternative position could be found, or because it was her second pregnancy in three years. On the evidence, the employer had made reasonable attempts to find alternative placement, and the unpaid leave was consistent with the company's policy and the BCEA. The arbitrator erred in accepting the employee's version, which was not properly put to the employer's witness, and in making findings beyond the scope of the complaint. The employer discharged its burden under section 11 of the EEA, and there was no unfair discrimination. The arbitrator's order to...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; complaint of unfair discrimination dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld, with no order as to costs.
  • The arbitrator's award is replaced with: 'The complaint of unfair discrimination is dismissed.'