A Durban company has been ordered to pay a chemist 11 months salary for discriminating against her on the basis of pregnancy.
Image: Pixabay/pexels
The Labour Court of South Africa has ruled that a Durban paint company had unfairly discriminated against a pregnant woman by sending her early on maternity leave without pay.
Induradec Coatings Pty in Pinetown has been ordered to pay Tiisetso Moleme R724,000 in compensation, which is equivalent to 11 months' salary.
Moleme had been employed as a chemist by the chemical coating company since October 2021.
Her job entailed the development of products and research.
In March 2023, Moleme informed her employer via email that she was pregnant.
She expressed her concern to the human resources department about working in the lab which would expose her to certain chemicals, including Bisphenol A, and requested to be moved out the enivironment.
Moleme said her manager gave her a respirator with a letter to take to her gynaecologist to ask him if the breathing apparatus was sufficient for her use without affecting the health of her baby.
The doctor said that this request was outside of his scope of expertise and said that the company had to secure a Health and Safety official.
The manager then asked her to do the same with her general practitioner, to which she received the same response.
On May 11, 2023, Moleme was invited to a meeting with senior managers where she was told that the company had no other option but to place her on extended maternity leave.
In a further email, the company went on to say that it was explained to Moleme at the meeting that "this is best for the benefit of both you and your unborn child."
It further read: "We confirm that you indicated that you might be able to do research, however,r this is not an option because presently there are no projects that require research."
In January 2024, Moleme received a Whatsapp message that her maternity leave was scheduled to have terminated and that she was absent without leave.
In a response, Moleme said she was resigning as she had lost her home, car, and suffered immense financial loss and had to relocate to Johannesburg.
The Labour Court in its findings, ruled that it was required by the company to obtain the services of a Health and Safety Expert to conduct the investigation.
It added that they failed to establish that Moleme's removal from the lab for the duration of her pregnancy had been necessary.
"In the circumstances, the respondent failed to establish a factual basis upon which this court could conclude that its decision to place Moleme on extended, unpaid maternity leave was rational and not unfair or otherwise justifiable."
The court ruled that Moleme was unfairly discriminated against on the grounds of pregnancy and the company was also ordered to pay the costs of the application.
IOL News