Whitehead v Woolworths (Pty) Ltd (C 122/98) [1999] ZALC 82 (28 May 1999)

Whitehead v Woolworths (Pty) Ltd (C 122/98) [1999] ZALC 82 (28 May 1999)

The court held that the applicant was not an employee for purposes of claiming automatic unfair dismissal under section 187(1)(e) of the Labour Relations Act, as she had not commenced work or tendered performance prior to the withdrawal of the job offer. However, the applicant was an 'applicant for employment' and thus protected under item 2(1)(a) of Schedule 7, which prohibits unfair discrimination on arbitrary grounds, including pregnancy. The respondent's requirement of uninterrupted job continuity was not objectively justifiable or reasonable, nor was it an inherent requirement of the job, and thus constituted unfair discrimination. The court found that the respondent committed an...

Citation
[1999] ZALC 82
Parties
Applicant: Beverley Whitehead; Respondent: Woolworths (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 May 1999
Case Number
C 122/98
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
The applicant's claim for automatic unfair dismissal was dismissed, but her claim for unfair discrimination succeeded.
Judges
B Waglay
Legal Topics
Automatic Unfair Dismissal, Unfair Labour Practice, Pregnancy Discrimination, Compensation Award, Definition of Employee
Labour Law Automatic Unfair Dismissal Unfair Labour Practice Pregnancy Discrimination Compensation Award Definition of Employee

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Beverley Whitehead

Applicant

Woolworths (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was dismissed and qualifies as an employee under the Labour Relations Act for purposes of claiming automatic unfair dismissal due to pregnancy.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's withdrawal of the job offer constituted unfair discrimination based on pregnancy under item 2(1)(a) of Schedule 7 to the Labour Relations Act.
  3. 3 What amount of compensation is fair and reasonable for the unfair labour practice committed.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicant was not an employee for purposes of claiming automatic unfair dismissal under section 187(1)(e) of the Labour Relations Act, as she had not commenced work or tendered performance prior to the withdrawal of the job offer. However, the applicant was an 'applicant for employment' and thus protected under item 2(1)(a) of Schedule 7, which prohibits unfair discrimination on arbitrary grounds, including pregnancy. The respondent's requirement of uninterrupted job continuity was not objectively justifiable or reasonable, nor was it an inherent requirement of the job, and thus constituted unfair discrimination. The court found that the respondent committed an...

Court Disposition

The applicant's claim for automatic unfair dismissal was dismissed, but her claim for unfair discrimination succeeded.

Orders

  • The respondent is ordered to pay the applicant compensation in the amount of R 200,000.00.
  • The respondent is ordered to pay the costs of this application.