Discipline and Dismissal



Dismissals where pregnancy is involved or there exists a dismissal for a reason related to pregnancy – even though the child had already been born – has always been an area of very thin ice indeed.



Section 187 of the LRA lists certain types of dismissals which are classified as "automatically unfair." This section states "A dismissal is automatically unfair if …….. the reason for the dismissal is (e) the employee's pregnancy, intended pregnancy, or any reason related to pregnancy." However, the protection afforded to an employee in terms of this section does not end with the birth of the employee's child.



In De Beer v SA Export Connection CC t/a Global Paws [2008] 1 BLLR 36 (LC), the following took place :



Briefly, by prior agreement, the employee had agreed to take only one month maternity leave. The employee gave birth to twins. The mother asked the employer to extend her maternity leave by 4 weeks because the twins were suffering from colic. The employer offered to extend her maternity leave by 2 weeks – which the employee refused to accept - and at the end of that period, the employer terminated her services. The employee claimed an automatically unfair dismissal in terms of section 187 (LRA), stating that she had been dismissed for a reason related to pregnancy.



The employer contended that the wording in section 187(1)(e) "for a reason related to pregnancy" applied only to complications experienced by the mother as a result of the birth, and not to the illness of the baby. He stated further that the employee had been dismissed for being absent from work without leave. Sound logical?

 
 

The Court held a different view. The Court said that section 187 (1)(e) (LRA)must be seen as part of "social legislation aimed at protecting women and putting them on a footing equal with men." "Difficulties experienced by employers in keeping a woman's job open while she is on maternity leave is the price that must be paid for recognizing the equal status of women in the workplace. The law protects women, not only while pregnant, but also while they are attending to the consequences of pregnancies."



However, in this case the employee was not originally granted her full period of maternity leave. She was given only one month maternity leave (albeit by agreement) – whereas she is legally entitled to 4 months maternity leave. The Court pointed out that in terms of the BCEA, the employee was entitled to 4 months maternity leave – and therefore, any agreement between her and the employer for only one month maternity leave was unlawful and therefore not enforceable – simply because such an agreement contravened the BCEA.


 

Had she been given her full entitlement of 4 months maternity leave, this issue would never have arisen. The Court noted that the treatment meted out to the employee was "degrading and offensive", and awarded her 20 months remuneration as compensation.In addition, the employer was ordered to pay the costs of the matter.



For further information, contact

Case Law Summaries and Articles

 

Can employees be dismissed for refusing to accept new terms and conditions of employment?

Can an employer dismiss employees because they refuse to agree to a change to their terms and conditions of employment? An initial answer may be, “yes”.

Read More >>>

 

Escape route: “Resignation with immediate effect”

The latest case in the ‘disciplining employees who have resigned with immediate effect’ saga has brought about more uncertainty as to whether an employee who resigns with immediate effect shortly before a disciplinary hearing can avoid disciplinary action and subsequent dismissal.

Read More >>>

 

Freedom of expression or incitement to commit an offence? A constitutional challenge

On 4 July 2019, the North Gauteng High Court handed down judgment in the case of The EFF and other v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and other (87638/2017 and 45666/2017) in which the EFF and Julius Malema (the applicants) sought to have s18(2)(b) of the Riotous Assemblies Act, No 17 of 1956 (Riotous Act) declared unconstitutional.

Read More >>>

 

Consolidated, comprehensive or general final written warnings

Regarding dismissal, according to the Code of Good Practice, “the courts have endorsed the concept of corrective or progressive discipline. This approach regards the purpose of discipline as a means for employees to know and understand what standards are required of them.

Read More >>>

 

 

 

 

 

 

Courses and Workshops

 

                                         

 
 

Shop Steward Training

28 August 2019

Emperors Palace Convention Centre

Employment Equity Committee Training

29 August 2019 (Fully Booked)

Tsogo Sun: Century City: Cape Town

30 August 2019

Tsogo Sun: Century City: Cape Town

27 September 2019

Emperors Palace: Convention Centre

04 October 2019

Southern Sun: Maharani: Durban

Basic Labour Relations

04 September 2019

Emperors Palace: Convention Centre

Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Course

12 September 2019

Southern Sun: Maharani Towers: Durban

The OHS Act and the Responsibilities of Management

13 September 2019

Southern Sun: Maharani Towers: Durban

19 September 2019

Emperors Palace: Convention Centre

28 November 2019

Protea Hotel By Marriott Tyger Valley: Cape Town

Managing Day to Day Issues/ Problem Employees Full day workshop

20 September 2019

Emperors Palace: Convention Centre

27 September 2019

Tsogo Sun: Century City: Cape Town

AARTO and the Impact on Your Business

03 October 2019

Emperors Palace Convention Centre

Hazard Identification & Risk Assessment Course

18 October 2019

Emperors Palace: Convention Centre

21 November 2019

Tsogo Sun: Century City: Stay Easy: Cape Town

Workshop Incident/Accident Investigation Course

25 October 2019

Emperors Palace: Convention Centre

22 November 2019

Tsogo Sun: Century City: Stay Easy: Cape Town

  

 Our Clients 

 

Android App On Google Play

Android App On Google Play