MRL3702
Assignment 1
Semester 2
DUE August 2025
, IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN
Case No: D581/2023
Not Reportable
In the matter between:
TIISETSO KEFILWE DAISY MOLEME Applicant
and
INDURADEC COATINGS (PTY) LTD Respondent
Heard: 15 and 16 August, and 4 September 2024
Delivered: This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the
parties and / or their legal representatives by email. The date and time for handing-
down is deemed 11h00 on 7 May 2025
JUDGMENT
ALLEN-YAMAN J
Introduction
[1] The applicant instituted action against the respondent in terms of s10 of the
Employment Equity Act, 1998 (‘the EEA’) in which she claimed the following relief,
, 2
‘1. A finding that the Respondent had failed to comply with the provisions
of s26 of the BCEA, in removing the Applicant from the Laboratory without
any duties and / or functions and placing the applicant on extended unpaid
maternity leave.
2. A finding that the Respondent had unfairly discriminated against the
Applicant due to her pregnancy and / or any other ground of discrimination
referred to in section 6(1) of the EEA.
3. The Respondent to make payment of 24 months’ compensation to the
Applicant.
4. Costs of suit.’
[2] The respondent disputed that it had acted as alleged, and so defended the
applicant’s claim.
Background
[3] The applicant was employed by the respondent on 18 October 2021. Albeit
that her contract of employment defined her Job Title as that of a ‘Chemist’, the
evidence introduced by both parties demonstrated that in such position her functions
included aspects of both research relating to, as well as the development of,
products for the respondent, a chemical coating company.
[4] Having fallen pregnant some twelve weeks earlier, the applicant notified the
respondent of her pregnancy in March 2023 by the transmission of an email to
another of the respondent’s employees, Ms Denise Foster, whom she was aware
dealt with the respondent’s Human Resources matters. The applicant was
concerned about continuing to work in the respondent’s laboratory which would
expose her to certain chemicals, including Bisphenol A, and requested to be moved
out of that environment. Ms Foster called her into her office and informed her that
she had never had occasion to deal with such an issue and was unsure of what to
do, but that she would notify the applicant’s immediate superior, Mr Geoff Powell (the
respondent’s Technical and Commercial Manager) who would be in contact with her.
Assignment 1
Semester 2
DUE August 2025
, IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN
Case No: D581/2023
Not Reportable
In the matter between:
TIISETSO KEFILWE DAISY MOLEME Applicant
and
INDURADEC COATINGS (PTY) LTD Respondent
Heard: 15 and 16 August, and 4 September 2024
Delivered: This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the
parties and / or their legal representatives by email. The date and time for handing-
down is deemed 11h00 on 7 May 2025
JUDGMENT
ALLEN-YAMAN J
Introduction
[1] The applicant instituted action against the respondent in terms of s10 of the
Employment Equity Act, 1998 (‘the EEA’) in which she claimed the following relief,
, 2
‘1. A finding that the Respondent had failed to comply with the provisions
of s26 of the BCEA, in removing the Applicant from the Laboratory without
any duties and / or functions and placing the applicant on extended unpaid
maternity leave.
2. A finding that the Respondent had unfairly discriminated against the
Applicant due to her pregnancy and / or any other ground of discrimination
referred to in section 6(1) of the EEA.
3. The Respondent to make payment of 24 months’ compensation to the
Applicant.
4. Costs of suit.’
[2] The respondent disputed that it had acted as alleged, and so defended the
applicant’s claim.
Background
[3] The applicant was employed by the respondent on 18 October 2021. Albeit
that her contract of employment defined her Job Title as that of a ‘Chemist’, the
evidence introduced by both parties demonstrated that in such position her functions
included aspects of both research relating to, as well as the development of,
products for the respondent, a chemical coating company.
[4] Having fallen pregnant some twelve weeks earlier, the applicant notified the
respondent of her pregnancy in March 2023 by the transmission of an email to
another of the respondent’s employees, Ms Denise Foster, whom she was aware
dealt with the respondent’s Human Resources matters. The applicant was
concerned about continuing to work in the respondent’s laboratory which would
expose her to certain chemicals, including Bisphenol A, and requested to be moved
out of that environment. Ms Foster called her into her office and informed her that
she had never had occasion to deal with such an issue and was unsure of what to
do, but that she would notify the applicant’s immediate superior, Mr Geoff Powell (the
respondent’s Technical and Commercial Manager) who would be in contact with her.
