1 / 18

Labour law – ARR224

Labour law – ARR224. Caselaw – Employment Equity Act. Prescribed material. Study: Ntai & others v SA Breweries Ltd (2001) 22 ILJ 214 (LC) Woolworths (Pty) Ltd v Whitehead (2000) 21 ILJ 571 (LC)

dinos
Download Presentation

Labour law – ARR224

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Labour law – ARR224 Caselaw – Employment Equity Act

  2. Prescribed material Study: • Ntai & others v SA Breweries Ltd (2001) 22 ILJ 214 (LC) • Woolworths (Pty) Ltd v Whitehead (2000) 21 ILJ 571 (LC) • Leonard Dingler Employees Representative Council v Leonard Dingler (Pty) Ltd & others (1998) 19 ILJ 285 (LC) • Germishuys v Upington Municipality (2000) 21 ILJ 2439 (LC) • Swart v Mr Video (Pty) Ltd (1998) 19 ILJ 1315 (CCMA) • Langemaat v Minister of Safety and Security & others 1998 (4) BCLR 444 (T ) • Evans v Japanese School of Johannesburg (2006) 27 ILJ 2607 (LC) • Datt v Gunnebo Industries (Pty) Ltd (unreported, LC case no JS355/07, 20 February 2009) • De Beer v SA Export Connection CC t/a Global Paws (2008) 29 ILJ 347 (LC) • Potgieter v National Commissioner of the SAPS & another (2009) 30 ILJ 1322 (LC) • Crotz v Worcester Transitional Local Council (2001) 22 ILJ 750 (CCMA) • Coetzer & others v Minister of Safety and Security (2003) 2 BLLR 173 • Harmse v City of Cape Town [2003] 6 BLLR 557 (LC) • Dudley v City of Cape Town (2004) 25 ILJ 991; 2004 (8) BCLR 805

  3. Caselaw - EEA (Unfair discrimination I) • Ntai & Others v SA Breweries Ltd • 2 white trainers had higher income than 3 black trainers. • Onus on applicant to prove that discrimination on unacceptable ground took place. • Applicant could not prove the allegation of ‘arbitrary grounds’. • E/r proved sufficient reasons, e.g. merit increases and seniority. • No unfair discrimination.

  4. Caselaw - EEA (Unfair discrimination II) • Woolworths v Whitehead • Job offered to woman. Could not relocate to Cape Town. Later on offered job and was able to relocate. Was pregnant however. Appoint her only on fixed-term contract and offered permanent position to someone else. • Court found that e/r had rational economic reasons (continuity). Also that e/e could not prove that she would have been appointed was it not for the pregnancy.

  5. Caselaw - EEA (Unfair discrimination III) • Leonard Dingler • E/r had 3 different funds: Staff benefit fund (White monthly); Pension fund (Black weekly); Provident fund (Black monthly) • Court found indirect discrimination based on race • Unfair? Look at effect of discrimination and whether it was reprehensible in community’s opinion? • Onus on e/r. • Unfair discrimination

  6. Caselaw - EEA (Unfair discrimination IV) • Coetzer v Minister of Safety and Security • Bomb squad of SAPS did not have own EEP. White male inspectors refused promotion on basis of AA. • Court found no specific plan for AA and therefore non-promotion to captain amounts to unfair discriminaiton.

  7. Caselaw - EEA (Unfair discrimination V) • Germishuys v Upington Municipality • White male was not appointed. Black male was appointed. White male alleged unfair discrimination. • Court looked at AA policy, interviews conducted, advertisement and competency tests. • White male made presumptions regarding his own competency. Black male was better. • No unfair discrimination.

  8. Caselaw - EEA (Unfair discrimination VI) • Swart v Mr Video • Did not want to appoint older person because he feared that he/she would not accept instructions from younger person. • CCMA found that age is not determinative of capability. • Unfair discrimination.

  9. Caselaw - EEA (Unfair discrimination VII) • Langemaat v Minister of Safety and Security • Medical aid refused that life-partner be registered as dependant. • Court found that a dependant relies on other for maintenance. • Unfair discrimination.

  10. Caselaw - EEA (Unfair discrimination VIII) • Evans v Japanese School of Jhb • Forced to retire before agreed retirement age. • Court found no retirement policy. • Unfair discrimination based on age.

  11. Caselaw - EEA (Unfair discrimination IX) • Datt v Gunnebo Industries • Dismissed by second manager after having been allowed by first manager to work beyond normal retirement age (ito agreement). • Court found that agreement with first manager gave rise to new terms. • Automatically unfair.

  12. Caselaw - EEA (Unfair discrimination X) • De Beer v SA Export Connection • Appointed in permanent position. Pregnant soon thereafter. Small business which would be influenced by this. Agreement with e/r to return a month after birth. Twins. Request for further month. Dismissed. • Court found unfair discrimination based on reasons related to pregnancy. BCEA affords more leave.

  13. Caselaw - EEA (Unfair discrimination XI) • Potgieter v National Commissioner of the SAPS • Applicant laid charges of sexual harassment. Resigned due to stress. Claimed that employer failed to comply with sect 60 of EEA. • Court found that in order to hold e/r liable: • One of employees in workplace. • Unfair discrimination. • Failed to take reasonable steps. • E/r dealt with it in adequate manner.

  14. Caselaw - EEA (Affirmative action I) • Ntai & Others v SA Breweries Ltd • 2 white trainers had higher income than 3 black trainers • AA does not afford an individual right but is only a ‘shield’ against unfair discrimination

  15. Caselaw - EEA (Affirmative action II) • Coetzer vir Minister of Safety and Security • AA imperative must be balanced with constitutional imperative: SAPS must still discharge responsibilities (good bomb squad) • If there is no AA-plan, AA can not be used as shield against unfair discrimination

  16. Caselaw - EEA (Affirmative action III) • Crotz v Worcester Transitional Local Council • Nobody qualifies. Appoints other person. Allegation of unfair discrimination. • Court found that e/r has prerogative. • However, e/r had no EEP. • Unfair discrimination.

  17. Caselaw - EEA (Affirmative action IV) • Harmse v City of Cape Town • Sect 20(1) & (2), EEA as a whole and Constitution. EE-plan may create legitimate expectation.

  18. Caselaw - EEA (Affirmative action V) • Harmse v City of Cape Town • Individual employee can’t enforce AA-claim i.t.o. plan. Only an enforcement issue. • Lilian Dudley v City of Cape Town and Ivan Toms: Failure to give designated groups preference (failure to appoint i.r.o. AA) does not constitute unfair discrimination. Harmse wrong.

More Related