, PLEASE USE THIS DOCUMENT AS A GUIDE TO ANSWER YOUR ASSIGNMENT
Study the case of Moleme v Induradec Coatings (Pty) Ltd (D581/2023) [2025] ZALCD 18 (7 May
2025) and write a two-page (maximum) legal opinion about the case. Your answer must include
the following aspects:
Summary of the facts of the case
Issue(s) in dispute in the case
The court’s decision
At the end provide a well-supported legal opinion which should cover the importance of the
case and your own analysis explaining whether the court’s interpretation and application of
the law is correct based on applicable labour law principles (bullet 4 is important and carries
more marks than the first three bullets).
Legal Opinion: Moleme v Induradec Coatings (Pty) Ltd (D581/2023) ZALCD 18 (7 May 2025)
1. Summary of the Facts
Ms. Tiisetso Kefilwe Daisy Moleme ("the Applicant") was employed as a Chemist by Induradec
Coatings (Pty) Ltd ("the Respondent") starting on October 18, 2021. Her role involved the research
and development of products in a laboratory setting. In March 2023, approximately twelve weeks
into her pregnancy, the Applicant informed the Respondent's HR department of her condition and
raised concerns about the potential hazards of continued exposure to chemicals in the laboratory
environment. She requested a reassignment to a safer work environment.¹
In response, Mr. Geoff Powell, the Respondent's Technical and Commercial Manager, instructed the
Applicant to move to an adjacent office. However, no tasks or duties were assigned to her during this
period, despite an agreement for access to a computer to allow limited functions. Powell consulted
with the Applicant’s medical practitioners, who suggested engaging a Health and Safety official to
assess the laboratory’s safety for pregnant employees. Despite this, the Respondent failed to conduct
such an investigation and instead, on May 11, 2023, informed the Applicant of the possibility of
being placed on extended, unpaid maternity leave, as no alternative position could be identified.¹
The Applicant refused this proposal in writing, asserting that the employer was obligated to provide
alternatives or modifications. Nonetheless, the Respondent proceeded to place her on unpaid
maternity leave effective May 16, 2023. This action led to a breakdown in trust between the parties,
culminating in the Applicant’s resignation in January 2024. The Applicant then initiated legal
action.¹
2. Issue(s) in Dispute
The Labour Court was tasked with determining whether the Respondent had:
Failed to comply with Section 26 of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act (BCEA) by
placing the Applicant on extended, unpaid maternity leave without offering alternative duties.¹
Unfairly discriminated against the Applicant on the grounds of pregnancy, as prohibited by
Section 6(1) of the Employment Equity Act (EEA).¹
The Applicant sought compensation for the loss of income, amounting to 24 months’ salary, as well
as legal costs.¹
¹ Moleme v Induradec Coatings (Pty) Ltd (D581/2023) [2025] ZALCD 18 (7 May 2025).
Study the case of Moleme v Induradec Coatings (Pty) Ltd (D581/2023) [2025] ZALCD 18 (7 May
2025) and write a two-page (maximum) legal opinion about the case. Your answer must include
the following aspects:
Summary of the facts of the case
Issue(s) in dispute in the case
The court’s decision
At the end provide a well-supported legal opinion which should cover the importance of the
case and your own analysis explaining whether the court’s interpretation and application of
the law is correct based on applicable labour law principles (bullet 4 is important and carries
more marks than the first three bullets).
Legal Opinion: Moleme v Induradec Coatings (Pty) Ltd (D581/2023) ZALCD 18 (7 May 2025)
1. Summary of the Facts
Ms. Tiisetso Kefilwe Daisy Moleme ("the Applicant") was employed as a Chemist by Induradec
Coatings (Pty) Ltd ("the Respondent") starting on October 18, 2021. Her role involved the research
and development of products in a laboratory setting. In March 2023, approximately twelve weeks
into her pregnancy, the Applicant informed the Respondent's HR department of her condition and
raised concerns about the potential hazards of continued exposure to chemicals in the laboratory
environment. She requested a reassignment to a safer work environment.¹
In response, Mr. Geoff Powell, the Respondent's Technical and Commercial Manager, instructed the
Applicant to move to an adjacent office. However, no tasks or duties were assigned to her during this
period, despite an agreement for access to a computer to allow limited functions. Powell consulted
with the Applicant’s medical practitioners, who suggested engaging a Health and Safety official to
assess the laboratory’s safety for pregnant employees. Despite this, the Respondent failed to conduct
such an investigation and instead, on May 11, 2023, informed the Applicant of the possibility of
being placed on extended, unpaid maternity leave, as no alternative position could be identified.¹
The Applicant refused this proposal in writing, asserting that the employer was obligated to provide
alternatives or modifications. Nonetheless, the Respondent proceeded to place her on unpaid
maternity leave effective May 16, 2023. This action led to a breakdown in trust between the parties,
culminating in the Applicant’s resignation in January 2024. The Applicant then initiated legal
action.¹
2. Issue(s) in Dispute
The Labour Court was tasked with determining whether the Respondent had:
Failed to comply with Section 26 of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act (BCEA) by
placing the Applicant on extended, unpaid maternity leave without offering alternative duties.¹
Unfairly discriminated against the Applicant on the grounds of pregnancy, as prohibited by
Section 6(1) of the Employment Equity Act (EEA).¹
The Applicant sought compensation for the loss of income, amounting to 24 months’ salary, as well
as legal costs.¹
¹ Moleme v Induradec Coatings (Pty) Ltd (D581/2023) [2025] ZALCD 18 (7 May 2025).
