MRL3702
Assessment 1
Due 2025
, MRL3702: Labour Law
Assessment 1 – Semester 2, 2025
Student Name: [Your Full Name]
Student Number: [Your Student Number]
Total Marks: 50
Word Count: [Insert]
Legal Opinion: Moleme v Induradec Coatings (Pty) Ltd (D581/2023) [2025] ZALCD
18
1. Summary of the Facts (2 Marks)
Tiisetso Moleme was employed by Induradec Coatings (Pty) Ltd as a chemist from
October 2021. On 1 March 2023, she informed her employer that she was 12 weeks
pregnant and submitted a medical certificate advising that she be removed from direct
exposure to laboratory chemicals, particularly those containing Bisphenol A (BPA),
which pose reproductive and developmental risks.
The employer relocated her to an office next to the laboratory but assigned her no
meaningful alternative duties. Critically, the employer failed to conduct a formal risk
assessment in accordance with the Code of Good Practice on the Protection of
Employees during Pregnancy and after the Birth of a Child, issued under the Basic
Conditions of Employment Act. On 18 May 2023, the employer placed Moleme on
unpaid maternity leave, claiming there was no suitable work for her. Due to financial
hardship, Moleme resigned in 2024 and lodged a claim with the Labour Court alleging
unfair discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy under section 6(1) of the
Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998.
2. Issues in Dispute (1 Mark)
The central issue in dispute was whether the employer’s failure to:
Assessment 1
Due 2025
, MRL3702: Labour Law
Assessment 1 – Semester 2, 2025
Student Name: [Your Full Name]
Student Number: [Your Student Number]
Total Marks: 50
Word Count: [Insert]
Legal Opinion: Moleme v Induradec Coatings (Pty) Ltd (D581/2023) [2025] ZALCD
18
1. Summary of the Facts (2 Marks)
Tiisetso Moleme was employed by Induradec Coatings (Pty) Ltd as a chemist from
October 2021. On 1 March 2023, she informed her employer that she was 12 weeks
pregnant and submitted a medical certificate advising that she be removed from direct
exposure to laboratory chemicals, particularly those containing Bisphenol A (BPA),
which pose reproductive and developmental risks.
The employer relocated her to an office next to the laboratory but assigned her no
meaningful alternative duties. Critically, the employer failed to conduct a formal risk
assessment in accordance with the Code of Good Practice on the Protection of
Employees during Pregnancy and after the Birth of a Child, issued under the Basic
Conditions of Employment Act. On 18 May 2023, the employer placed Moleme on
unpaid maternity leave, claiming there was no suitable work for her. Due to financial
hardship, Moleme resigned in 2024 and lodged a claim with the Labour Court alleging
unfair discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy under section 6(1) of the
Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998.
2. Issues in Dispute (1 Mark)
The central issue in dispute was whether the employer’s failure to:
