Latest news with #InduradecCoatingsPty
IOL News
25-05-2025
- Business
- IOL News
Durban paint company appeals Labour Court ruling on unfair maternity leave discrimination
A Durban paint company will ask the labour court for leave to appeal against a finding that it had unfairly discriminated against a pregnant worker by sending her on maternity leave without pay, three months ahead of her actual pregnancy leave starting. Image: File A Durban paint company, who was ordered to pay a former worker more than R700,000 after the Labour Court found that it had unfairly discriminated against the pregnant woman by sending her early on maternity leave without pay, is set on appealing the ruling and will argue that the court has made several erroneous findings against it. Induradec Coatings Pty in Pinetown has been ordered to pay Tiisetso Daisy Moleme, a chemist working for the company, R724,000 in compensation, which is equivalent to 11 months' salary. The paint company has meanwhile filed an application for leave to appeal the ruling. As Moleme's job entailed the development of products and research, she became concerned about the chemicals with which she had to work when she became pregnant. After telling her employer that she was pregnant, she expressed her concern to the human resources department and requested to be moved out of the laboratory. She said she was promised alternative duties in the meantime, but this never happened. Instead, she was told that she was being placed on early maternity leave, without pay. The company explained to Moleme that "this is best for the benefit of both you and your unborn child". The court ruled that Moleme was unfairly discriminated against on the grounds of pregnancy, but it commented that the company did not act out of malice when it placed her on unpaid, early pregnancy leave. The court also found that the company had failed to establish that Moleme's removal from the lab for the duration of her pregnancy had been necessary. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ In its grounds for asking for leave to appeal, the company questioned this and other findings and said the court failed to consider that Moleme was the one who asked to be removed from the laboratory. It questioned how the court could find that Induradec Coatings's conduct was discriminatory under these circumstances, especially as there was no request from Moleme to be placed back in the lab. The paint company said the court also erred in dealing with the aspect of compensation to be paid to Moleme. It awarded more than R700,000 in compensation, under circumstances where she would have had less than three months to work before she went on pregnancy leave. She would then have faced the same situation (after going on normal pregnancy leave) as she would have had to obtain UIF payments instead of her salary, the company reasoned. It questioned how the court could have found that the paint company did not act in bad faith towards Moleme, yet it was ordered to pay her 11 months' salary. This, it said, under circumstances where she only lost out on three months' pay before going on maternity leave. The paint company added that the court had failed to consider the fact that it had taken steps to find out how to deal with the situation. It pointed out in its application that it has checked with two doctors as well as an occupational health and safety practitioner on an alternative mechanism to be used by Moleme so that she could continue her work in the lab. No date has yet been set down for the leave to appeal application.
IOL News
21-05-2025
- Business
- IOL News
Pregnancy discrimination backfires: Chemist wins R724,000 payout
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 employees via email that she was pregnant. She expressed her concern to the human resources department about working in the lab which would explose 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 her for use without affecting the health of her baby. The doctor said that this requst was outside of his scope of expertise and said that the company had to secure a Health and Safety offical. The manager then asked her to do the same with her general practioner, 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, howeve,r this is not an option because presently there are not any projects which 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. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad Loading In a response Moleme said she was resigning as she has 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'sremoval from the lab for the duration of her pregnancy had in fact been neccessary. "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 was unfairly discriminated on the grounds of pregnancy and the company was also ordered to pay the costs of the application. IOL News
