Tanda v MEC, Department of Health (PS32/19) [2022] ZALCPE 25; (2022) 43 ILJ 2601 (LC); [2023] 1 BLLR 95 (LC) (26 August 2022)

Tanda v MEC, Department of Health (PS32/19) [2022] ZALCPE 25; (2022) 43 ILJ 2601 (LC); [2023] 1 BLLR 95 (LC) (26 August 2022)

The court found that the applicant made a protected disclosure when she reported Mrs Njalo's instruction to unlawfully add a candidate to the shortlist, which constituted a breach of recruitment policy and legal obligations. The respondent's argument that the disclosure was made in the ordinary scope of duties was rejected, as this aspect was not put to the applicant and the facts were distinguishable from precedent. The evidence established that the applicant suffered occupational detriment, including exclusion from HR duties, denial of professional development, and humiliation, directly resulting from her protected disclosure. The respondent failed to follow fair procedures and instead...

Citation
[2022] ZALCPE 25
Parties
Applicant: Vuyelwa Thelma Tanda; Respondent: MEC, Department of Health
Court
Labour Court Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 August 2022
Case Number
PS32/19
Procedural Posture
Labour Law Application / Judgment
Outcome
The applicant succeeded. The respondent was found to have committed an occupational detriment in breach of the Protected Disclosures Act and was ordered to compensate and reinstate the applicant.
Judges
Lallie
Legal Topics
Protected Disclosure, Occupational Detriment, Whistleblower Protection, Unfair Labour Practice
Labour Law Administrative Law Protected Disclosure Occupational Detriment Whistleblower Protection Unfair Labour Practice

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

Parties

Vuyelwa Thelma Tanda

Applicant

MEC, Department of Health

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Law Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant made a protected disclosure as defined in the Protected Disclosures Act.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant suffered occupational detriment as a result of making the protected disclosure.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's conduct constituted a breach of section 3 of the Protected Disclosures Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant made a protected disclosure when she reported Mrs Njalo's instruction to unlawfully add a candidate to the shortlist, which constituted a breach of recruitment policy and legal obligations. The respondent's argument that the disclosure was made in the ordinary scope of duties was rejected, as this aspect was not put to the applicant and the facts were distinguishable from precedent. The evidence established that the applicant suffered occupational detriment, including exclusion from HR duties, denial of professional development, and humiliation, directly resulting from her protected disclosure. The respondent failed to follow fair procedures and instead...

Court Disposition

The applicant succeeded. The respondent was found to have committed an occupational detriment in breach of the Protected Disclosures Act and was ordered to compensate and reinstate the applicant.

Orders

  • The respondent committed an occupational detriment in breach of section 3 of the Protected Disclosures Act 26 of 2000 against the applicant.
  • The respondent is ordered to pay the applicant R162,402.20 minus lawful deductions.