White job applicant wins discrimination case

E

EtienneK

Expert Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2007
Messages
3,985
Reaction score
2
The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) on Wednesday found in favour of a KwaZulu-Natal man who said he was not appointed at the Grey Hospital in Pietermaritzburg because he was white.

Martin Gordon, who was recommended by a selection panel as the best candidate for the job, approached the labour court claiming that he was not appointed solely because of his race and colour.

He submitted that this amounted to unfair discrimination under the Labour Relations Act.

The labour court rejected the claim, but Gordon took his case to the labour appeal court.

It dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the successful candidate, a black man, had a direct and substantial interest in the proceedings and that the failure to join him in the matter was "non-suited".




On Wednesday, the SCA reversed the labour court's decision, finding that the appointment of the black applicant, supposedly on the grounds of affirmative action, unfairly discriminated against Gordon.

Delivering a unanimous judgment by a panel of five judges, Judge D Mlambo said the court found that Gordon had sought protective promotion which posed no direct implications for the successful candidate.

The SCA found that the appointment of the black candidate in the absence of a plan or programme was ad hoc and therefore arbitrary.

The SCA found that "ad hoc and arbitrary" conduct was not contemplated in section eight of the interim constitution.

The Bloemfontein court held that the appointment of the black candidate therefore discriminated unfairly against Gordon. - Sapa
Click to expand...

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?from=rss_News&set_id=1&click_id=79&art_id=nw20080917141246636C628958

:eek::eek::eek:
 
So .. if I understand this correctly ..
Hiring an AA candidate without a Plan or Programme when another non AA candidate is MORE suitable is Discrimination?

No really ... I don't understand.
 
Hang on folks - it was only deemed unfair discrimination by the court on the grounds that they didn't have a policy on AA appointments. So don't celebrate the end of AA just yet...
 
Not to rain on the parade. But the judgement was handed down becuase of an administrative technicality, the hospital did not have a employment equity plan, and were just doing things "ad hoc and arbitarily".

Most companies and bodies have one such plan in place and have to submit it every year or so IIRC. So on the basis of this, I would not read too much into the ruling having a wider effect.
 
Hey! I got denied a job coz Im white... :(

I would be earning double what Im earning now too

I heard theres a timeline for this *** to end?
 
gregmcc said:
Excellent - I should add the link to the top of my CV! :)
Click to expand...

ROFL :D

kingmonty said:
Hang on folks - it was only deemed unfair discrimination by the court on the grounds that they didn't have a policy on AA appointments. So don't celebrate the end of AA just yet...
Click to expand...

Yes, we know. But the fact tat the courts actually called the hospital on this is in itself amazing :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X