.

whether the termination of Shongololo’s employment by the Airports company and

if so, on which grounds and in terms of which Legislation, If applicable.
. whether Shongololo is entitled to any possible relief.
.whether Shongololo or the Airports company will be required to pay the costs of this
suit.
.whether there is a possibility of an order granting furthure and/ or alternative relief

Whether the termination of shongololo employment by the Airports company

constituted unfair discrimination and if so, on which grounds and in terms of
which legislation.
Section 187(1) of the Labour relations Act paragraph (f) states that the employer
unfairly discriminated against an employee, directly or indirectly , on any arbitrary
ground, including but not limited to race , gender , sex, ethnic , or social origin, colour
, sexual orientation, age , disability, religion , conscience , belief , political opinion ,
culture , language, marital status or family responsibility.
So other than the constitutional right no to be discriminated against , employees are
specifically protected against discrimation by ss 187(1)(f).
Employees may not be discriminated against on the basis of sex, gender or sexual
orientation. Issues of gender and sexual orientation may be more complex from a
physical and psychological point of view , but in the context of labour law the
prohibition of discrimination against gays , Lesbians and transsexuals is absolute,
unless in the unluckily event that the employer can prove that sexual orientation is
somehow relevant to the employee’s job.
Case of Atkins v Datacentrix (pty) Ltd (2010) 31 The applicant was offered
employment by the responded after a successful interview. He had duly accepted
the offer of then announced to the responded that he wanted to undergo a gender-
reassingment process (sex change) from Male to female. The responded was not
impressed and terminated his contract of employment because he had failed to
disclose. This omission was serious case of misrepresentation which is dishonesty. It
considered his actions to be repudiation it accepted and no longer required his
services. Fortunately for the applicant, he had not resigned from his previous
employer. Amava Technologies(pty) Ltd (Amava) and continued to wor. He referred
an unfair discrimination dispute to the commission for conciliation, Mediation and
Arbitration (the CCMA) for conciliation and to this court adjudication.
Issues that arose in the case
Whether the termination of the applicant employment by the respondent constituted
unfair discrimination of the applicant by the respondent on the grounds of gender,
sex/ sexual orientation within the meaning section 6(1) of the employment equality
act of the Employment equity act 55 of 1998 (Equity Act) , another issue is the
Automatic unfair dismissal of the applicant by the responded on the basis of gender ,
sex and /or sexual within the meaning of section 187(1) (f) of the Labour Relations
act 1995.
In the circumstances of the decision the following orders were addressed by the
judgement:
The applicant’s dismissal by the responded amounts to automatic unfair dismissal in
terms of section 187 (1)(f) of the LRA.
The responded had unlawfully and unfairly discriminated against the applicant
against the applicant on the grounds of sex and gender.
The respondent is to pay the applicant R100 00 compensation for the automatically
unfair dismissal claim payable within ten days of this order.
The respondent is in terms of section 50(2)(c) of the EEA directed to take the steps
to prevent the same unfair discrimination or any similar practice occurring in respect
of other employees, and to report to this court within three months from the date of
this order on the steps so taken.
The respondent is in terms of section 50(1) and 50 (2) of the EEA directed to
apologise to the applicant in writing within one week of this order being made.
Therefore it was concluded that the respondent is to pay the costs of this application.

Whether shongololo is entitled to any possible relief?

The relief should be offered by the Responded because of the violation of the Bill of
Rights which is emancipated in the constitutionality of Supreme law of the country,
Section 9 (3)The state may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against
anyone on one or more grounds , including race ,gender , sex , pregnancy , marital
status , ethnic or social origin, colour , sexual orientation , age , disability , religion ,
conscience , belief , culture , language and birth.
So it is clear from this point that the applicant is entitled to any possible relief.
Whether shongololo or the airports company will be required to pay the costs
of the suit

Whether there is possibility of an order granting furthure and/ or alternative

belief