Mahlangu and Another v Minister of Labour and Others

• Jurisdiction: http://justis.com/jurisdiction/166,South Africa

Mahlangu and Another v Minister of Labour and Others
2021 (2) SA 54 (CC)

2021 (2) SA p54

Citation	2021 (2) SA 54 (CC)
Case No	306/19; [2020] ZACC 24
Court	Constitutional Court
Judge	Mogoeng CJ, Jafta J, Khampepe J, Madlanga J, Majiedt J, Mathopo AJ, Mhlantla J, Theron J, Tshiqi J and Victor AJ
Heard	November 19, 2020
Judgment	November 19, 2020
Counsel	K Moroka SC (with M Lekoane) for the applicants.; NH Maenetje SC (with R Ramashia) for the respondents.; E Webber (with L Phasha) for the first amicus curiae.; P Khoza for the second amicus curiae.

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde

Constitutional law — Human rights — Right not to be unfairly discriminated against — Indirect discrimination — Concept of intersectional discrimination discussed and applied — Constitution, s 9(3).

Constitutional law — Human rights — Right of access to social security — Infringed by COIDA's denial of social security assistance to domestic workers — Constitution, ss 27(1)(c) and 27(2); Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act 130 of 1993, s 1xix(d)(v).

Constitutional law — Human rights — Right to dignity — Infringed by COIDA's denial of social security assistance to domestic workers — Constitution, s 10; Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act 130 of 1993.

Constitutional law — Legislation — Validity — Exclusion of domestic workers from COIDA's definition of 'employee' — Declared constitutionally invalid with retrospective effect from commencement of Interim Constitution, 1994 — Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act 130 of 1993, of s 1xix(d)(v).

Labour law — Employee — Domestic worker — COIDA's denial of social security assistance to domestic workers — Discriminatory and infringing right to social security — Constitution, ss 27(1)(c) and 27(2); Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act 130 of 1993, s 1xix(d)(v).

Labour law — Workmen's compensation — Compensation under COIDA — Denial of social security assistance to domestic workers — Discriminatory and infringing their right to social security — Constitution, ss 27(1)(c) and 27(2); Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act 130 of 1993, s 1xix(d)(v).

Headnote : Kopnota

Section 1xix(d)(v) of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act 130 of 1993 (COIDA) excludes domestic workers employed in private households from the definition of 'employee', thereby denying them compensation in the event of injury, disablement or death in the workplace.

Here, the Constitutional Court confirmed High Court orders declaring s 1xix(d)(v) invalid to the extent of this exclusion, with retrospective effect to the commencement of the Interim Constitution. The court, however, differed on the constitutional rights infringed. The majority held that:

•

COIDA must be read and understood within the constitutional framework of s 27 and its objective of achieving substantive equality, so that social security assistance in terms of COIDA was a subset of the right of access to social security under s 27(1)(c) of the Constitution. Furthermore, the obligation under s 27(2) to take reasonable legislative and other measures, within available resources, included the obligation to extend COIDA to domestic workers. The failure to do so in the face of the respondents'

2021 (2) SA p55

admitted available resources constituted a direct infringement of s 27(1)(c), read with s 27(2) of the Constitution. (See [52], [59] and [66].)

•

The differentiation between domestic workers and other categories of workers was arbitrary and inconsistent with the right to equal protection and benefit of the law under s 9(1); and — applying the concept of 'intersectionality' — it also amounted to indirect discrimination, under s 9(3). (See [73], [75], [84] – [85], [90], [93], [95], [102] and [105] – [107].)

•

Domestic workers have endured the indignity of multiple intersecting forms of discrimination. The exclusion of domestic workers from benefits under COIDA had an egregious discriminatory and deleterious effect on their inherent dignity (s 10). (See [108], [114] – [115].)

The first minority judgment (at [132] – [182]) found no infringement of ss 9(3), 10 or 27, and would have disposed of the matter on the basis of a s 9(1) infringement alone; the second (at [183] et seq) agreed with the main judgment, except iro the s 27 infringement (where it agreed with the first minority judgment).

Cases cited

Southern Africa

Amod v Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund 1998 (4) SA 753 (CC) (1998 (10) BCLR 1207; [1998] ZACC 11): referred to

Brink v Kitshoff NO 1996 (4) SA 197 (CC) (1996 (6) BCLR 752; [1996] ZACC 9): dictum in para [42] applied

Carmichele v Minister of Safety and Security and Another (Centre for Applied Legal Studies Intervening) 2001 (4) SA 938 (CC) (2002 (1) SACR 79; 2001 (10) BCLR 995; [2001] ZACC 22): referred to

Centre for Child Law and Others v Media 24 Ltd and Others 2020 (4) SA 319 (CC) (2020 (3) BCLR 245; [2019] ZACC 46): dictum in para [86] applied

Chisuse and Others v Director-General, Department of Home Affairs and Another 2020 (6) SA 14 (CC) (2020 (10) BCLR 1173; [2020] ZACC 20): dictum in para [18] applied

Daniels v Scribante and Another 2017 (4) SA 341 (CC) (2017 (8) BCLR 949; [2017] ZACC 13): applied

Ferreira v Levin NO and Ohers; Vryenhoek and Others v Powell NO and Others 1996 (1) SA 984 (CC) (1996 (1) BCLR 1; [1995] ZACC 13): dictum in para [28] applied

Freedom of Religion South Africa v Minister of Justice and Others 2020 (1) SA 1 (CC) (2019 (11) BCLR 1321; [2019] ZACC 34): dictum in para [45] applied

Government of the Republic of South Africa and Others v Grootboom and Others 2001 (1) SA 46 (CC) (2000 (11) BCLR 1169; [2000] ZACC 19): applied

Harksen v Lane NO and Others 1998 (1) SA 300 (CC) (1997 (11) BCLR 1489; [1997] ZACC 12): dictum in para [53] applied

Hassam v Jacobs NO and Others 2009 (5) SA 572 (CC) (2009 (11) BCLR 1148; [2009] ZACC 19): dictum in para [28] applied

Jooste v Score Supermarket Trading (Pty) Ltd (Minister of Labour Intervening) 1999 (2) SA 1 (CC) (1999 (2) BCLR 139; [1998] ZACC 18): dicta in paras [9] and [17] applied

Khosa and Others v Minister of Social Development and Others; Mahlaule v Minister of Social Development and Others 2004 (6) SA 505 (CC) (2004 (6) BCLR 569; [2004] ZACC 11): applied

2021 (2) SA p56

Law Society of South Africa and Others v Minister for Transport and Another 2011 (1) SA 400 (CC) (2011 (2) BCLR 150; [2010] ZACC 25): dicta in paras [15] and [63] applied

Mankayi v AngloGold Ashanti Ltd 2011 (3) SA 237 (CC) (2011 (5) BCLR 453; [2011] ZACC 3): dicta in paras [13] and [15] applied

Mazibuko v City of Johannesburg and Others 2010 (4) SA 1 (CC) (2010 (3) BCLR 239; [2009] ZACC 28): applied

Minister of Finance and Another v Van Heerden 2004 (6) SA 121 (CC) (2004 (11) BCLR 1125; [2004] 12 BCLR 1181; [2004] ZACC 3): dictum in para [28] applied

Minister of Health and Others v Treatment Action Campaign and Others (No 2) 2002 (5) SA 721 (CC) (2002 (10) BCLR 1033; [2002] ZACC 15): dictum in in para [24] applied

Minister of Home Affairs and Another v Fourie and Another (Doctors for Life International and Others, Amici Curiae); Lesbian and Gay Equality Project and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Others 2006 (1) SA 524 (CC) (2006 (3) BCLR 355; [2005] ZACC 19; [2005] ZACC 20): referred to

Minister of Justice v SA Restructuring and Insolvency Practitioners Association and Others 2018 (5) SA 349 (CC) (2018 (9) BCLR 1099; [2018] ZACC 20): dictum in para [61] applied

Mphahlele v First National Bank of SA Ltd 1999 (2) SA 667 (CC) (1999 (3) BCLR 253; [1999] ZACC 1): dictum in para [18] applied

Mvumvu and Others v Minister for Transport and Another 2011 (2) SA 473 (CC) (2011 (5) BCLR 488; [2011] ZACC 1): dicta in paras [44] and [46] applied

National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality and Another v Minister of Justice and Others 1999 (1) SA 6 (CC) (1998 (12) BCLR 1517; [1998] ZACC 15): dictum in para [113] applied

Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of SA and Another: In re Ex parte President of the Republic of South Africa and Others 2000 (2) SA 674 (CC) (2000 (3) BCLR 241; [2000] ZACC 1): dictum in para [56] applied

Phillips and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions, Witwatersrand Local Division, and Others 2003 (3) SA 345 (CC) (2003 (4) BCLR 357; [2003] ZACC 1): dictum in para [8] applied

Pretoria City Council v Walker 1998 (2) SA 363 (CC) (1998 (3) BCLR 257; [1998] ZACC 1): applied

Prinsloo v Van der Linde and Another 1997 (3) SA 1012 (CC) (1997 (6) BCLR 759; [1997] ZACC 5): dictum in para [25] applied

S v Makwanyane and Another 1995 (3) SA 391 (CC) (1995 (6) BCLR 665; [1995] ZACC 3): dictum in para [9] applied

S v Mhlungu and Others 1995 (3) SA 867 (CC) (1995 (2) SACR 277; 1995 (7) BCLR 793; [1995] ZACC 4): dictum in para [8] applied

S v Tshabalala and Another 2020 (5) SA 1 (CC) (2020 (3) BCLR 307; [2019] ZACC 48): dictum in paras [68] – [69] applied

S v Zuma and Others 1995 (2) SA 642 (CC) (1995 (1) SACR 568; 1995 (4) BCLR 401; [1995] ZACC 1): dictum in para [15] applied

South African Revenue Service v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others 2017 (1) SA 549 (CC) (2017 (2) BCLR 241; [2017] 1 BLLR 8; [2016] ZACC 38): dictum in para [5] applied

Strategic Liquor Services v Mvumbi NO and Others 2010 (2) SA 92 (CC) (2009 (10) BCLR 1046; [2009] ZACC 17): dictum in para [15] applied

Stuttafords Stores (Pty) Ltd and Others v Salt of the Earth Creations (Pty) Ltd 2011 (1) SA 267 (CC) (2010 (11) BCLR 1134; [2010] ZACC 14): dictum in para [10] applied

2021 (2) SA p57

Tiekiedraai Eiendomme (Pty) Ltd v Shell South Africa Marketing (Pty) Ltd 2019 (7) BCLR 850 (CC) ([2019] ZACC 14; 2019 JDR 0719): dictum in para [20] applied

Tshwane City v Afriforum and Another 2016 (6) SA 279 (CC) (2016 (9) BCLR 1133...