1
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Not Reportable
Case no : JS 682/22
In the matter between:
LINDA JOSEPH Plaintiff
and
ALTRON MANAGED SOLUT IONS LIMITED Defendant
Heard: 21 January 2025
Delivered: 22 January 2025
Summary: Plaintiff alleging that she was dismissed, and her dismissal was
automatically unfair. Parties in dispute as to whether matter settled. Evidence
indicating that dispute settled.
REASONS FOR ORDER
DANIELS J
Summary
1. As the facts will demonstrate, through no fault of her own, the plaintiff’s
circumstances are unfortunate. My judgment, in dismissing the dispute, is
not a reflection of any lack of sympathy. The outcome was dictated solely
2
by the application of the law to the facts, while taking into consideration that
fairness is a concept which extends to both employer and to employee alike.
The dispute, having been enrolled for trial, came before me on 21 January
2025. The plaintiff alleged that she was dismissed, as a result of her
disability, and her dismissal was automatically unfair in terms of section
187(1)(f) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 as amended. The
defendant denied that the plaintiff was dismissed. The defendant also
alleged that the dispute had bec ome settled a few days before the trial,
which was disputed by the plaintiff. Accordingly, on the first day of the trial,
evidence and argument was heard in relation to the alleged settlement. I
handed down an order later that same day based on my view tha t the
dispute had been settled. These are the reasons for my order.
Material facts
2. The defendant made submissions, based largely on email correspondence,
exchanged between the parties, which it presented to the court. The plaintiff
elected to give evidence and was duly cross examined. During cross
examination, the plaintiff was permitted to tender one additional email into
evidence. During the plaintiff’s testimony, and by reference to the
documents, the following became evident:
2.1. The plaintiff was employed by the defendant as a credit controller. Her
duties required her to communicate, verbally, with both colleagues and
customers.
2.2. The plaintiff experienced medical issues related to her speech and
vocal abilities during 2021. As a result, the defend ant required her to
present medical proof of illness. The plaintiff struggled to provide such
proof due to restrictions arising from the COVID19 pandemic.
3
2.3. The defendant alleges that it repeatedly offered the plaintiff alternative
positions to accommodate her illness. The plaintiff, on the other hand,
denies that the defendant made any efforts to accommodate her.
2.4. As an employee of the defendant, the plaintiff was a member of a
provident fund, Momentum, which provided her with insurance covering
disablemen t.
2.5. Under pressure to provide proof of her medical condition, the plaintiff
applied to Momentum for “rehabilitation”. Initially, her application was
rejected. However, following an appeal, Momentum found that the
plaintiff was permanently disabled albeit only partially incapacitated –
referred to by Momentum as “permanent partial disablement”. What this
meant was that the plaintiff was permanently incapable of performing
her work as a credit controller but she was capable of performing some
other kind of w ork. This entitled the plaintiff to 75% of her salary,
payable by Momentum. As a result of her status as “permanently
partially disabled”, the defendant informed the plaintiff that she would
no longer be required to render services.
2.6. The plaintiff testifi ed that she accepted the settlement offer made by the
defendant because she had been placed under time pressure, and
because she was fearful that the court could order her to pay costs if
the matter went ahead. The plaintiff testified that she should not h ave
accepted the settlement offer (which related, primarily, to an offer of
“administrative reinstatement”) because her queries, concerning the
offer, were not fully answered before she communicated her
acceptance of the offer. Under cross examination the plaintiff conceded
that by the time she accepted the offer most of her queries were
resolved including her queries about: (1) the consequences of
administrative reinstatement, (2) the effective date of reinstatement, (3)
medical aid benefits, and (4) the i mpact of the settlement on disability
4
benefits. Challenged to clarify which of her queries remained
outstanding (at the time she accepted the offer) the plaintiff could only
state that she had human resources related queries, and the benefits
from the defe ndant and Momentum are different. Clearly the plaintiff
fails to comprehend that the disability benefit derives solely from
Momentum and has nothing to do with the defendant.
3. The email correspondence, the authenticity of which was undisputed, reflected
the following:
3.1. On 14 January 2025, the defendant emailed a settlement offer to the
plaintiff. The offer was, in simple terms, an offer that the defendant
would reinstate the pl aintiff, for administrative purposes alone, but the
plaintiff would remain on disability. The offer was to remain open until
close of business the following day. Later that day, in a further email,
the defendant clarified that the offer contemplated that t he plaintiff
would not receive any medical aid benefits. The plaintiff emailed the
defendant and asked it to consider paying her compensation in an
amount equal to 24 months remuneration.
3.2. On 15 January 2025, there was a flurry of emails. In defendant’s em ails,
it clarified that the administrative reinstatement would take effect from 1
February 2025. The defendant also clarified that the administrative
reinstatement would mean that: (i) the plaintiff would not be required to
tender her services to it, (ii) the defendant would not actively engage
her services, (iii) the plaintiff would not receive any remuneration from
it, (iv) the plaintiff would be placed on the books or systems of the
defendant and be considered an employee, and (v) the plaintiff would
continue to receive the same disability benefits. Later that day, the
defendant extended the deadline for acceptance of the offer.
5
3.3. On 16 January 2025, at 11:23, the plaintiff indicated that she was
prepared to accept administrative reinstatement but again re quested
the defendant to consider paying her compensation (this time no longer
specifying the amount of 24 months remuneration). The defendant
replied that it would not consider paying the plaintiff any compensation.
At 16:01 the plaintiff emailed the defe ndant informing it that she
accepted the settlement offer of “being reinstated administratively, with
all current benefits intact”. It is apparent from the email that the plaintiff
dropped her earlier request for compensation. Importantly, in the email,
the plaintiff did not reserve her rights or seek further clarification of the
offer. In the circumstances, her acceptance of the settlement offer was
unconditional. Later that day, the defendant advised the plaintiff that it
would inform the Registrar of the Court that the parties had settled the
dispute.
Analysis
4. Having considered all the evidence, both documentary and testimonial, there
can be little doubt that this dispute has been finally settled. The defendant’s
conduct was entirely consistent with thi s. This was also consistent with
correspondence exchanged between the parties, and the testimony of the
plaintiff. The plaintiff’s failure to ensure that she understood the full implications
of the offer, before communicating her unconditional acceptance o f it, cannot
be laid at the door of the defendant. In the circumstances, the probabilities
overwhelmingly indicate that the dispute has been settled. It is trite that the
court exists to determine live disputes between the parties.
5. At court, defendant’s representative, Mr Soldatos, clarified that the offer of
“administrative reinstatement” contemplated that, if the disability benefit
becomes exhausted, the defendant is obliged to attempt to place the plaintiff
into a vacant position (with no guarantee of the same level of remuneration
applicable to credit controllers) taking into consideration her skills, abilities, and
6
the extent of her disability. If the plaintiff cannot be placed, this will result in an
incapacity related process and potential dismissal . The plaintiff does not
become entitled to remuneration until she has been successfully placed.
6. The defendant did not seek costs from the plaintiff. Despite the defendant’s
success, taking all the relevant criteria into consideration, including the fact that
the plaintiff was unrepresented, fairness dictates that there be no award of
costs.
Conclusion
7. In the circumstances, I find that the dispute has become settled on the basis of
the offer made by the defendant on 14 January 2025, as clarified in subsequent
emails1 and further explained at court.2 It follows that I must make the following
order: (1) The matter is dismissed, (2) There is no order as to costs.
Reynaud Daniels
Judge of the Labour Court
Appearances
For the Plaintiff:
Self-represented
For the Defendant:
Mr Soldatos
Soldatos Cooper Inc
1 As clarified in defendant’s emails addressed to the plaintiff dated 15 January 2025 (sent at
07:50) and 16 January 2025 (sent at 09:32).
2 See para 5 of this judgment.