Odac

Cases

Biowatch GMO Case - Heads of Argument for amicus curiae

Heads of argument filed on behalf of the Amicus Curiae

Cases - Whistleblowing

ODAC's board took a decision in 2006 that the Centre should begin litigating whistleblowing cases. A number of important decisions have been made in the last five years.

A. Pedzinski vs Andisa Securities (PTY) LTD (formerly SCMB Securities (PTY) LTD) ((2005)(LC): Automatically unfair dismissal - Compensation - Employee's dismissal spurious and a sham - Employer using her medical condition to get rid of diligent and committed employee - Employee awarded 24 months' compensation.
Department of Transport, Roads and Public Works of the Northern Cape Province and C. Botha N.O. ; Public Service Co-ordinating Bargaining Council; G. Chase; PAWUSA (2007(LC): This is an application to review an arbitration award made by the first respondent (the commissioner) in terms of which he had found that the applicant did not have the capacity to appoint a chairperson who is not an employee, as envisaged in the Public Service Act (the PSA), to chair disciplinary hearings of its employees.
H. Charlton and Parliament of the Republic of South Africa(2007)(LC): The applicant disclosed information regarding improper travel benefits claimed by Members of Parliament. The employer argued that MPs are neither the employer of the applicant nor the employees of the respondent and therefore the disclosures were not protected in terms of the protected Disclosures Act. An important aspect to this case is that the court found that the definition of employee in the PDA is wider than the definition in the Labour Relations Act and that Parliament does have business which is to legislate for the Republic of South Africa and MPs perform duties for Parliament, being an organ of the State. The court held that MPs were both employees and employers.
K. Grieve vs. Denel (Pty) Ltd (2003)(LC): In this case the applicant brought an urgent application in the Labour Court to interdict the respondent from proceeding with any disciplianry action or enquiry against him. The court had to decide whether there was a link between the charges brought against the applicant and the fact that he made disclosures. The court found in the applicant's favour and granted the interdict conditional apon the applicant launching proceedings for conciliation at the Bargaining Council.
M. Tshishonga and the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development ; Director General of the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (2006)(LC): This case dealt with :whether dislosures to the media about impropriety in the workplace is protected under the Protected Disclosures Act. What is a disclosure and when does it qualify for protection? What remedies are appropriate for compensating victims of an occupational detriment? In this case, a whistleblower was awarded the maximum award possible, after making a general disclosure to the press.