Yedwa v Nedbank Group Ltd (JS660/11) [2013] ZALCJHB 176 (31 July 2013)

Yedwa v Nedbank Group Ltd (JS660/11) [2013] ZALCJHB 176 (31 July 2013)

The applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of unfair discrimination based on marital status, as the travel policy did not differentiate between married and unmarried staff, and the standing practice allowed unmarried staff to obtain tickets for family members. The initial refusal by the manager was promptly reversed following the applicant's grievance, and the applicant was offered the benefit in time to make use of it. There was no evidence of financial prejudice or practical impossibility in making new arrangements. The employer took reasonable steps to remedy the situation, and thus cannot be held liable under section 60 of the Employment Equity Act. Absolution from the...

Citation
[2013] ZALCJHB 176
Parties
Applicant: Rhoda Nompumelelo Yedwa; Respondent: Nedbank Group Ltd.
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 July 2013
Case Number
JS660/11
Procedural Posture
Absolution Application / Close of Applicant's Case; Respondent Applied for Absolution From the Instance.
Outcome
Absolution from the instance granted in favour of the respondent. Costs partially awarded against the applicant.
Judges
Lagrange
Legal Topics
Employment Equity Act, Unfair Discrimination, Absolution From Instance, Travel Policy Interpretation
Labour Law Civil Procedure Employment Equity Act Unfair Discrimination Absolution From Instance Travel Policy Interpretation

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rhoda Nompumelelo Yedwa

Applicant

Nedbank Group Ltd.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Absolution Application / Close of Applicant's Case; Respondent Applied for Absolution From the Instance.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was unfairly discriminated against on the basis of marital status in the application of the respondent's travel policy.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's travel policy or its application constituted unfair discrimination under the Employment Equity Act.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent can be held liable under section 60 of the Employment Equity Act for the manager's conduct.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of unfair discrimination based on marital status, as the travel policy did not differentiate between married and unmarried staff, and the standing practice allowed unmarried staff to obtain tickets for family members. The initial refusal by the manager was promptly reversed following the applicant's grievance, and the applicant was offered the benefit in time to make use of it. There was no evidence of financial prejudice or practical impossibility in making new arrangements. The employer took reasonable steps to remedy the situation, and thus cannot be held liable under section 60 of the Employment Equity Act. Absolution from the...

Court Disposition

Absolution from the instance granted in favour of the respondent. Costs partially awarded against the applicant.

Orders

  • The respondent is granted absolution from the instance.
  • The applicant must pay half the respondent’s costs of preparing for trial.