MRL3702
Assignment 1 Semester 2 2025
Unique #
Due Date: August 2025
Detailed solutions, explanations, workings
and references.
+27 81 278 3372
, 3 ANSWERS PROVIDED
LEGAL OPINION: MOLEME V INDURADEC COATINGS (PTY) LTD (D581/2023)
[2025] ZALCD 18 (7 MAY 2025)
1. Summary of the Facts
Tiisetso Moleme, employed as a chemist at Induradec Coatings, informed the
company in March 2023 that she was pregnant and requested relocation from the
laboratory due to chemical exposure risks, including Bisphenol A.1 She was moved
to an office without being assigned duties and, following a consultation meeting in
May 2023, was placed on extended unpaid maternity leave.2 The company cited
section 26(2) of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act 75 of 1997 (BCEA), arguing
no alternative position was available.3 Moleme, left without income, returned to her
family home in Gauteng, losing her residence, car, and income security.4 She
referred a dispute to the CCMA under section 10 of the Employment Equity Act 55 of
1998 (EEA), alleging unfair discrimination based on pregnancy and non-compliance
with BCEA.5 The matter was unresolved and brought before the Labour Court.
2. Issues in Dispute (≈50 words)
The case addressed whether Induradec:
(a) unfairly discriminated against Moleme on the ground of pregnancy under
section 6(1) of the EEA; and
(b) complied with section 26(2) of the BCEA, which requires employers to offer
suitable alternative work to pregnant employees where practicable.6
3. Court’s Decision
1
Moleme v Induradec Coatings (Pty) Ltd (D581/2023) [2025] ZALCD 18 (7 May 2025) para 4.
2
Ibid paras 5–12.
3
Ibid para 12.
4
Ibid paras 14, 42.
5
Ibid para 13.
6
Ibid para 15.
Varsity Cube 2025 +27 81 278 3372
Assignment 1 Semester 2 2025
Unique #
Due Date: August 2025
Detailed solutions, explanations, workings
and references.
+27 81 278 3372
, 3 ANSWERS PROVIDED
LEGAL OPINION: MOLEME V INDURADEC COATINGS (PTY) LTD (D581/2023)
[2025] ZALCD 18 (7 MAY 2025)
1. Summary of the Facts
Tiisetso Moleme, employed as a chemist at Induradec Coatings, informed the
company in March 2023 that she was pregnant and requested relocation from the
laboratory due to chemical exposure risks, including Bisphenol A.1 She was moved
to an office without being assigned duties and, following a consultation meeting in
May 2023, was placed on extended unpaid maternity leave.2 The company cited
section 26(2) of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act 75 of 1997 (BCEA), arguing
no alternative position was available.3 Moleme, left without income, returned to her
family home in Gauteng, losing her residence, car, and income security.4 She
referred a dispute to the CCMA under section 10 of the Employment Equity Act 55 of
1998 (EEA), alleging unfair discrimination based on pregnancy and non-compliance
with BCEA.5 The matter was unresolved and brought before the Labour Court.
2. Issues in Dispute (≈50 words)
The case addressed whether Induradec:
(a) unfairly discriminated against Moleme on the ground of pregnancy under
section 6(1) of the EEA; and
(b) complied with section 26(2) of the BCEA, which requires employers to offer
suitable alternative work to pregnant employees where practicable.6
3. Court’s Decision
1
Moleme v Induradec Coatings (Pty) Ltd (D581/2023) [2025] ZALCD 18 (7 May 2025) para 4.
2
Ibid paras 5–12.
3
Ibid para 12.
4
Ibid paras 14, 42.
5
Ibid para 13.
6
Ibid para 15.
Varsity Cube 2025 +27 81 278 3372
