Image
Icon

Directory

IconAppraisers and Valuers
IconAssociations and Institutes
IconBBBEE Consulting and Verification Agencies
IconConsumer Protection
IconCorporate Governance
IconCredit Bureaus
IconDefensive Driver Training
IconEmergency Medical Rescue
IconInsurance Brokers - Alphabetical Listing
IconInsurance Brokers by Type of Product or Service Needed
IconInsurance Companies
IconInsurance Consultants
IconLightning Damage & Surge Protection Specialists
IconOmbud
IconOnline Quotes and Cover
IconPremium Financing
IconPublic Loss Adjustors
IconPublications
IconRating Agencies
IconRegulatory Authorities
IconRisk Finance
IconRisk Management
IconRisk Surveyors
IconSalvage Operators
IconTelephone Quotes
IconVehicle Accident Management
IconVehicle and Household Risk Inspection Services
IconVehicle Tracking
IconWellness Programs
Image
  Subscribe To »

Employment Practices Liability - Looks do not determine competence

Published

2017

Thu

20

Apr

 

 

 

 

Seonita Avery, Claims Manager
Camargue Underwriting Managers (Pty) Ltd

 

 

 

 

“This matter was borne out of a tragic event, which, instead of being resolved on the basis of compassion and good sense, escalated into unfortunate litigation on the basis of discrimination. I am still surprised how often employers can be short sighted where it comes to personal circumstances of their employees. The employment relationship, in the modern constitutional era, is akin to a marriage, and as an employer one has to ask yourself how you would treat your spouse in the case of personal tragedy, and then act accordingly” – Acting Labour Court Judge S Snyman Presiding Officer (Smith v Kit Kat Group (Pty) Ltd (JS787/14) [2016] ZALCJHB 362; [2016] 12 BLLR 1239 (LC); (2017) 38 ILJ 483 (LC) (23 September 2016).

In some industries, such as the fashion industry, having the right look is what determines whether you get the job or not. Whether a model can argue unfair discrimination based on their looks or a disability when not getting a job is debatable of course.

The facts of the case are very different from a requirement to have a particular physical attribute to carry out the job satisfactorily. The above case was heard at the Labour Court after the CCMA found that the matter fell outside its jurisdiction.

Mr. S was an employee of X (Pty) Ltd. He suffered from depression which resulted in an attempted suicide. He was not successful with his suicide attempt, instead he was left with a severe facial disfigurement and a speech impediment. Following time spent in hospital and facial reconstruction surgery he spent time at home recovering. Mr. S was employed as General Manager – Non-Food at X (Pty) Ltd. The Co - CEO assured Mr. S’s brother in law that once he is recovered he could go back to work.

When S had recovered sufficiently to return to work he informed his employer. The other Co – CEO then indicated to Mr. S that he could not return to work as he was no longer “facially acceptable” and that his presence would be a constant reminder to the other employees of what happened to him. Following this turn of events Mr. S and his brother in law met with company representatives and was once again informed that he was “cosmetically unacceptable” and would traumatize the other employees if he came back to work.

It was suggested the Mr. S pursue a disability claim, which he declined as he was of the view that he was not actually disabled as his injury was self-inflicted. Despite several emails and meetings between the parties the matter could not be resolved.

The Court noted that in the case of National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa and Others v Abancedisi Labour Services, it was found that “A refusal to allow an employee to do the work he was engaged to do may constitute a wrongful repudiation and a fundamental breach of the employment contract which vests the employee with an election to stand by the contract or terminate it….” This is effectively what X (Pty) Ltd had done by failing to allow Mr. S to return to work due to their view that he was “facially unacceptable”. This failure resulted in them unilaterally terminating the employment contract. Mr S was therefore considered to have been discriminated against by his employer and was therefore unfairly dismissed.

The Court ruled that Mr S was unfairly discriminated against due to his disabilities and ordered that the employer pay damages and compensation to the value of R1 540 199.40 to Mr. S. This equates to 30 months’ salary which is 6 months more than the norm. The additional 6 months being for the humiliation Mr. S suffered at the hands of his employer.

What this judgement reiterates is that having a disability does not make one incompetent or unable to work.

 
Source: Camargue Underwriting Managers (Pty) Ltd
 
« Back to previous page Print this page » |
 

Breaking News »

One more holiday break in sight – stay safe on the roads

While many may have pleasant memories of the Easter weekend, others are however counting the costs of loss over the long weekend due to various road accidents that happened across the country. According to traffic ...
Read More »

  

Happy campers make for happy holidays

The great outdoors is a favourite South African pastime, whether it is ‘trekking’ a caravan to a remote beach location, camping in a tent in the bush, or sitting around the campfire under the stars ...
Read More »

  

Laws amendment to accommodate health insurance demarcation regulations

      Patrick Bracher, Director Norton Rose Fulbright South Africa Inc.   The pending changes to the Medical Schemes Act and the Long-term and Short-term Insurance ...
Read More »

  

Aon 2017 Global Risk Management Survey

Unprecedented volatility adds new urgency and complexity to old risks Bi-annual survey finds economics, demographics and geopolitics as well as technology advancements creating new reality for companies around ...
Read More »

 

More News »

Image

Healthcare »

Image

Investment »

Image

Life »

Image

Retirement »

Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Advertise Here

From The Glossary »

Icon

Onus Of Proof:

The responsibility for producing evidence to confirm assertions made. It is the duty of the insured or claimant (beneficiary under a life policy) to prove the loss took place.
More Definitions »

 
 
By using this website you agree to the Terms of Use.
Copyright © Stoker Risk & ICT (Pty) Ltd 2004 - 2017.
All Rights Reserved.
Icon

Advertise

  Icon

eZine

  Icon

Contact IG

Icon

Media Pack

  Icon

RSS Feeds