Then she decided to approach the Labor Court. The case remained unresolved because the representatives of the Police Service did not show up to the conciliation meeting even though notified. Later, she referred to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation, and Arbitration (CCMA) claiming that she has become a subject of unfair discrimination. Instead, she filed a complaint under the Police Service’s grieving procedure. The second-best applicant was not appointed for the same reason. Barnard still did not comply with the requirement of representativity. This time, she was rejected to fill the vacancy because she was already employed in the division, and appointing her to a new position would create the need to fill her occupation. The second-best applicant had a result that was 7.33% lower than Ms. Barnard again obtained the highest score. The board of interviewers was again made up of racially diverse senior police officers, and Ms. This time, she was shortlisted with seven other applicants: four African men one African woman one Colored man, and one White man ( South African Police Service v Solidarity obo Barnard, 2014). Barnard applied again and once more was shortlisted to be interviewed in June 2006. Six months later, in May 2006, a similar vacancy was advertised. The position was filled with a white man. For this reason, it would be better to appoint one of the other applicants with the best results (they were White men) not to exacerbate the problem of racial homogeneity in the division. The justification for this decision was that the black men and women were underrepresented in the relating division and that the division should not be overcrowded with women at the offered level of salary. Barnard was recommended as the number one applicant to fill the position of the superintendent because she earned the highest score among those interviewed – 86.67%. The board was racially diverse to avoid prejudice and discrimination. They were interviewed by the board of six senior police officers. In November, interviews of the applicants took place. The occupation was advertised in September 2005. She wanted to fill the promotion position of the superintendent advertised by the National Inspectorate aimed at improving the quality of delivering services of the Police Service to the public. Barnard is a member of Solidarity, a registered trade union, which represented her in litigation. Barnard, a manifestation of unfair discrimination in employment? Facts The major question is the following: was the National Commissioner’s decision not to promote a white woman, Ms. Legal acts violated are section 9(3) of the Constitution encouraging equality and prohibiting unfair discriminatory actions and section 6(1) of the Employment Equity Act as well forbidding unfair discrimination in the process of employment and during work. The primary concern is that the South African Police Service decided not to promote Ms. The issues under consideration are equality and racial discrimination in the workplace. The case was decided by the Constitutional Court of South Africa on 2 September 2014. Barnard is a respondent Police and Prisons Civil Rights Union is a friend of the court (amicus curiae). South African Police Service is the applicant Solidarity on behalf of Captain Renate M. The title of the case is South African Police Service v Solidarity obo Barnard.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |