News

Security guard with stutter wins discrimination case against employer

COMPENSATION

Sinenhlanhla Masilela|Published

THE Labour Court has awarded R24 640 in compensation to a security guard who was unfairly transferred from his position due to his speech stutter.

Image: File / IOL Archives

THE Labour Court has awarded R24 640 in compensation to a security guard who was unfairly transferred from his position due to his speech stutter.

The court found that the company's actions constituted disability discrimination, overturning a previous CCMA ruling that dismissed the guard's claims.

The court ruled that the commissioner at the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) had failed to properly assess the evidence in an unfair discrimination dispute brought under the Employment Equity Act.

The man, Justice Mmakau, was employed as a security guard by Mantis Security (Pty) Ltd and placed at a client’s premises where he interacted with members of the public. Mmakau, who has a speech stutter, alleged that his employer removed him from that position and transferred him to another site because of his disability.

During arbitration proceedings, the employer conceded that if the transfer was motivated by the employee’s disability, it would amount to unfair discrimination. The central issue before the commissioner was therefore whether the relocation was linked to Mmakau’s stutter or whether it was based on other operational reasons.

The commissioner found that Mmakau had failed to prove that the transfer was motivated by his disability and dismissed the claim. Mmakau then approached the Labour Court to review the arbitration award.

In its judgment, the Labour Court held that a proper case had been made out for the review and setting aside of the award. The court substituted the CCMA decision with a finding in favour of the employee.

The court went on to consider appropriate compensation 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 comparable cases had resulted in higher awards, the court noted that Mmakau had retained his employment and was seeking compensation rather than damages.

Taking all circumstances into account, the court awarded compensation equal to four months’ remuneration, amounting to R24,640. No order was made as to costs.

Mantis Security and the CCMA did not oppose the review application and did not appear in court.

 

POST