MRL3702
ASSIGNMENT 1 SEMESTER 2 2025
UNIQUE NO.
DUE DATE: 2025
, Labour Law
Legal Opinion: Moleme v Induradec Coatings (Pty) Ltd (D581/2023) [2025] ZALCD
18 (7 May 2025)
1. Summary of the Facts
Ms Tiisetso Moleme was employed as a chemist by Induradec Coatings (Pty) Ltd. In
March 2023, after notifying the employer of her pregnancy, she expressed concern
about potential exposure to harmful chemicals in the laboratory. The employer removed
her from the lab but failed to assign her alternative duties. Despite her willingness to
work in a modified role, she was eventually placed on extended unpaid maternity leave
from May 2023, without medical justification or formal health and safety assessment.
Moleme suffered significant financial loss, had to return to her family home, and
eventually resigned in January 2024. She then approached the Labour Court claiming
unfair discrimination on the basis of pregnancy and a failure by the employer to comply
with section 26 of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act (BCEA).
2. Issue(s) in Dispute
Whether the employer unfairly discriminated against Ms Moleme on the
prohibited ground of pregnancy under section 6(1) of the Employment Equity Act
(EEA).
Whether the employer complied with section 26(2) of the BCEA by offering
suitable alternative employment or properly assessing the risk of Moleme
continuing in her role.
ASSIGNMENT 1 SEMESTER 2 2025
UNIQUE NO.
DUE DATE: 2025
, Labour Law
Legal Opinion: Moleme v Induradec Coatings (Pty) Ltd (D581/2023) [2025] ZALCD
18 (7 May 2025)
1. Summary of the Facts
Ms Tiisetso Moleme was employed as a chemist by Induradec Coatings (Pty) Ltd. In
March 2023, after notifying the employer of her pregnancy, she expressed concern
about potential exposure to harmful chemicals in the laboratory. The employer removed
her from the lab but failed to assign her alternative duties. Despite her willingness to
work in a modified role, she was eventually placed on extended unpaid maternity leave
from May 2023, without medical justification or formal health and safety assessment.
Moleme suffered significant financial loss, had to return to her family home, and
eventually resigned in January 2024. She then approached the Labour Court claiming
unfair discrimination on the basis of pregnancy and a failure by the employer to comply
with section 26 of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act (BCEA).
2. Issue(s) in Dispute
Whether the employer unfairly discriminated against Ms Moleme on the
prohibited ground of pregnancy under section 6(1) of the Employment Equity Act
(EEA).
Whether the employer complied with section 26(2) of the BCEA by offering
suitable alternative employment or properly assessing the risk of Moleme
continuing in her role.
