MRL3702
Assignment 1
Semester 2
Due 2025
, LEGAL OPINION: Moleme v Induradec Coatings (Pty) Ltd (D581/2023) [2025]
ZALCD 18
1. Summary of the Facts
• Tiisetso Moleme was employed by Induradec Coatings as a chemist from
October 2021. In March 2023 she disclosed she was pregnant and asked to be
moved from the lab due to chemical risks (e.g. Bisphenol A).
• The employer moved her to an adjacent office but assigned her no duties and
provided only informal consultation from an occupational safety lecturer, not a
proper risk assessment as required by the Code of Good Practice.
• In May 2023, after a consultation meeting, the company placed her on extended
unpaid maternity leave, claiming no suitable alternative work was available. That
decision left her without income, leading to her resignation in early 2024.
2. Issues in Dispute
• Whether the employer unfairly discriminated against Moleme on the basis of
pregnancy in contravention of section 6(1) of the Employment Equity Act.
• Whether the employer complied with section 26(1) and (2) of the Basic
Conditions of Employment Act (BCEA) and the related Code of Good Practice
regarding workplace risk evaluation and offering suitable alternative work.
3. The Court’s Decision
• The Labour Court ruled that Induradec discriminated unfairly on prohibited
grounds of pregnancy under s 6(1) of the EEA, and that removal and forced
unpaid leave were unjustified in the absence of a proper risk assessment.
• Although the employer showed no suitable alternative role was practicable, the
lack of any risk evaluation made its decision irrational and unfair under s 11(1) of
the EEA.
• Moleme was awarded compensation equal to 11 months’ salary (R 724,086) and
costs on Scale B.
Assignment 1
Semester 2
Due 2025
, LEGAL OPINION: Moleme v Induradec Coatings (Pty) Ltd (D581/2023) [2025]
ZALCD 18
1. Summary of the Facts
• Tiisetso Moleme was employed by Induradec Coatings as a chemist from
October 2021. In March 2023 she disclosed she was pregnant and asked to be
moved from the lab due to chemical risks (e.g. Bisphenol A).
• The employer moved her to an adjacent office but assigned her no duties and
provided only informal consultation from an occupational safety lecturer, not a
proper risk assessment as required by the Code of Good Practice.
• In May 2023, after a consultation meeting, the company placed her on extended
unpaid maternity leave, claiming no suitable alternative work was available. That
decision left her without income, leading to her resignation in early 2024.
2. Issues in Dispute
• Whether the employer unfairly discriminated against Moleme on the basis of
pregnancy in contravention of section 6(1) of the Employment Equity Act.
• Whether the employer complied with section 26(1) and (2) of the Basic
Conditions of Employment Act (BCEA) and the related Code of Good Practice
regarding workplace risk evaluation and offering suitable alternative work.
3. The Court’s Decision
• The Labour Court ruled that Induradec discriminated unfairly on prohibited
grounds of pregnancy under s 6(1) of the EEA, and that removal and forced
unpaid leave were unjustified in the absence of a proper risk assessment.
• Although the employer showed no suitable alternative role was practicable, the
lack of any risk evaluation made its decision irrational and unfair under s 11(1) of
the EEA.
• Moleme was awarded compensation equal to 11 months’ salary (R 724,086) and
costs on Scale B.
