Wallace v Du Toit (LC334/05 , C334/2005) [2006] ZALC 3; [2006] 8 BLLR 757 (LC); (2006) 27 ILJ 1754 (LC) (27 March 2006)

Wallace v Du Toit (LC334/05 , C334/2005) [2006] ZALC 3; [2006] 8 BLLR 757 (LC); (2006) 27 ILJ 1754 (LC) (27 March 2006)

The court found that the applicant was dismissed by the respondent due to her pregnancy, which constitutes an automatically unfair dismissal under section 187(1)(e) of the Labour Relations Act. The respondent's claim of a contractual term allowing termination upon pregnancy was rejected as unsupported by evidence and contrary to constitutional and statutory values. The court held that the respondent's conduct also amounted to unfair discrimination under section 6(1) of the Employment Equity Act, as there is no inherent requirement that an au pair must not be pregnant or a parent. The applicant was entitled to compensation for patrimonial loss and damages for injured dignity, but the total...

Citation
[2006] ZALC 3
Parties
Applicant: M. Wallace; Respondent: Dr. Pieter Du Toit
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 March 2006
Case Number
C 334/2005
Procedural Posture
Labour Unfair Dismissal / Trial
Outcome
The applicant succeeded; the respondent was found to have committed an automatically unfair dismissal and unfair discrimination.
Judges
M Pillemer
Legal Topics
Automatic Unfair Dismissal, Pregnancy Discrimination, Employment Equity Act, Compensation Quantum, Solatium, Contractual Terms
Labour Law Civil Procedure Automatic Unfair Dismissal Pregnancy Discrimination Employment Equity Act Compensation Quantum Solatium Contractual Terms

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

Parties

M. Wallace

Applicant

Dr. Pieter Du Toit

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Unfair Dismissal / Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the applicant dismissed due to her pregnancy, constituting an automatically unfair dismissal under section 187(1)(e) of the Labour Relations Act?
  2. 2 Did the respondent's conduct amount to unfair discrimination under section 6(1) of the Employment Equity Act?
  3. 3 Is the applicant entitled to compensation and damages under both the Labour Relations Act and the Employment Equity Act?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant was dismissed by the respondent due to her pregnancy, which constitutes an automatically unfair dismissal under section 187(1)(e) of the Labour Relations Act. The respondent's claim of a contractual term allowing termination upon pregnancy was rejected as unsupported by evidence and contrary to constitutional and statutory values. The court held that the respondent's conduct also amounted to unfair discrimination under section 6(1) of the Employment Equity Act, as there is no inherent requirement that an au pair must not be pregnant or a parent. The applicant was entitled to compensation for patrimonial loss and damages for injured dignity, but the total...

Court Disposition

The applicant succeeded; the respondent was found to have committed an automatically unfair dismissal and unfair discrimination.

Orders

  • The respondent is ordered to pay the applicant R71,500 together with interest at 15.5% per annum from 22 April 2005 to date of payment.
  • If income tax is payable on the amount, the respondent must pay the amount to SARS without recourse to the applicant.