The Labour Court in Johannesburg has ordered a private security company to pay compensation to a security guard who was unfairly discriminated against due to his speech stutter.
The ruling follows a review application in which the court found that a commissioner at the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) failed to properly assess evidence in an unfair discrimination dispute brought under the Employment Equity Act.
Background To The Case
The employee, Justice Mmakau, was employed by Mantis Security (Pty) Ltd and stationed at a client’s premises where his duties involved regular interaction with members of the public. Mmakau, who has a stutter, alleged that he was removed from this position and transferred to another site because of his disability.
During arbitration proceedings, the employer acknowledged that a transfer motivated by an employee’s disability would constitute unfair discrimination. The key issue before the commissioner was whether Mmakau’s relocation was linked to his stutter or whether it was based on operational requirements.
The commissioner ultimately found that Mmakau had not proven that the transfer was disability-related and dismissed the claim. Mmakau then approached the Labour Court to have the arbitration award reviewed.
Court Findings And Compensation
In its judgment, the Labour Court ruled that sufficient grounds existed to review and set aside the CCMA award. The court substituted the earlier decision with a finding in favour of the employee.
The court then considered an appropriate compensation award in terms of section 50(2)(a) of the Employment Equity Act. At the time of the dispute, Mmakau earned a monthly salary of R6,160. While higher awards had been granted in similar matters, the court took into account that Mmakau remained employed and sought compensation rather than damages.
After considering all relevant factors, the court awarded compensation equivalent to four months’ salary, amounting to R24,640. No costs order was made.
Mantis Security and the CCMA did not oppose the review application and were not present during the court proceedings.
Facebook Comments