![]() The second to the eleventh applicants are employees of theĭepartment. Some of its members are employed by the Department. The first applicant is Solidarity, a registered trade Had also concluded that the Department’s decisionsĪppoint certain of the individual applicants constituted unfairĭiscrimination but did not grant the individual applicants (EE Act) but had not declared the 2010 EE Plan invalid. The Labour Court hadĬoncluded that the 2010 EE Plan did not comply with certain Second and further applicants to certain posts constituted unfairĭiscrimination and unfair labour practices and, if so, what theĪppropriate remedy was, was in issue. In addition, the Department’s refusal to appoint the (Department), for the period 2010-2014 (2010 EE Plan) was invalid. Of the first respondent, the Department of Correctional Services The Labour Court related to a dispute between the parties on whether In terms of that decision the applicants’ appeal againstĪ decision of the Labour Court was dismissed. The applicants have brought an application for leave to appealĪgainst a decision of the Labour Appeal Court (LAC). ZONDO J (Moseneke DCJ, Jafta J, Khampepe J, Nkabinde J and Van der There is no order as to costs in this Court. Have been appointed to the respective posts had they not been deniedĦ. (e) The orders in (c) and (d) shall operate with retrospective effectįrom the date with effect from which the individual applicants Paid the remuneration and be accorded the benefits attached to those Posts that were subsequently filled and are presently filled (d) Those individual applicants who had applied for appointment to Posts and be paid remuneration and accorded the benefits attached Posts that remain vacant to this day or that are presently vacantĮven if they had subsequently been filled must be appointed to those (c) Those individual applicants who had applied for appointment to They respectively sought to be appointed constituted unfairĭiscrimination and unfair labour practices and are set aside. (b) The decisions of the Department of Correctional Services not toĪppoint the rest of the individual applicants to the posts “(a) The claims by Mr PJ Davids, Mr AJ Jonkers and Ms LJ The orders of the Labour Court and Labour Appeal Court are setĪside and that of the Labour Court is replaced with the following: The appeals by Mr PJ Davids, Mr AJ Jonkers and Ms LJ Fortuin areĥ. Subject to paragraph 4, the appeal is upheld.Ĥ. The late delivery of the first to third respondents’ writtenģ. Quotas – refusal to appoint set aside andġ. Unfair discrimination based on race or gender – numerical Invalid – refused to appoint candidates – Wrong benchmark used to set targets and determine representation – National economically active population in setting numerical targetsĪlso applies to African, Coloured and Indian candidates as well as toĭenied appointment if he or she belongs to a category of persons that Non-compliance with section 42 of Employment Equity Act –Īccount demographic profile of both regional and Summary: Validity of employment equity plan – J, Nugent AJ, Van der Westhuizen J and Zondo J Neutral citation: Solidarity v Department of CorrectionalĬoram: Moseneke DCJ, Cameron J, Jafta J, Khampepe J, Nkabinde ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |