OUR TEAM

OUR TEAM

Meet our team

Sade Maitland

Director

+27 (0)82 561 9787

[email protected]

Sade obtained her LLB degree Cum Laude in 2014. After graduating, she worked and attended an after-hours, full-time, compulsory course on practical legal training in which she was honoured as the overall best performer of her class. She has always had a passion for employment law and was fortunate enough to have been involved in complex, high-level employment matters prior to, and after, being admitted as an attorney in early 2018.

Sade has provided employment law advice to several local and international clients, particularly in the sectors of FMCG entertainment, media, aviation, technology, pharmaceutical, manufacturing, distributing, building, construction, and mining. Her experience includes advising clients on various employment matters, including organisational restructures, collective labour law and disciplinary, grievance and compliance. In addition, she enjoys a litigious practice representing Clients in the CCMA, Bargaining Councils, Labour Court, Labour Appeal Court.

Sade has a keen interest in outdoor fitness. She also enjoys reading and spending quality time with friends and family, bird watching and photography.

Legal Instinct. Business Insight.

ADDRESS

Block F, 1^stFloor, Suite No. 109,

Acacia, Hurlingham Office Park,

59 Woodlands Avenue,

Hurlingham Manor, Sandton,

Johannesburg, South-Africa

QUICK LINKS

LATEST WILKEN'S INK

The impact of violence occurring during a protected strike on the nature of the strike and the subsequent dismissal of employees

By Lee Masuku and Sanele Vilakazi • October 31, 2023

In African Meat Industry and Allied Trade Union (AMITU) and Others v Shave and Gibson Packaging (Pty) Ltd (D1050/2019) [2023] ZALCD 17 (17 October 2023) , the Labour Court was called upon to consider a diverse range of issues that arose on account of a protected strike that turned violent. In particular, in this judgment the Court dealt with the following issues: Whether it is possible for a protected strike to become “unprotected” and if so, what is required for a strike to lose its protection, The dismissal of employees on the basis of: unlawful conduct during the course of a strike; derivative misconduct; and contempt of a Court order and non-compliance with picketing rules and the Code of Good Practice on Picketing ( “Code” ). The appropriate relief in respect of an unfair dismissal of “striking” employees.

Can the unpleasant consequences of the exercise of managerial prerogative be regarded as harassment?

By Sanele Vilakazi • October 20, 2023

In La Foy v Department of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others (J1952/2017) [2023] ZALCJHB 127 (8 September 2023) , the Labour Court was called upon to shed some light on the intricate legal concepts involving harassment as a form of unfair discrimination within the meaning of section 6(3) of the Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998 (“ EEA ”). The Applicant in this matter, Ms Gabriella La Foy, was formerly employed as a Director-General by the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (“ DoJCD ”). Ms La Foy had referred a claim of unfair discrimination to the Labour Court, claiming that she experienced harassment during her tenure at the DoJCD. Ms La Foy’s claim of unfair discrimination was premised on, among other things, the following allegations: Her branch that she was managing within the DoCJD was grappling with capacity issues due to staff shortages. She subsequently completed a request to fill up vacant positions which she considered critical and she had provided a motivation outlining the necessity of these positions. However, her request was declined, which she perceived as harassment. Several complaints were made against Ms La Foy, resulting in her receiving “audi alteram partem” (tell your side of the story) letters. She contended that the issued letters amounted to further harassment. While the DoCJD investigated the complaints against her, Ms La Foy was transferred to another position pending the finalisation of the investigation. She viewed this transfer as a demotion and an additional form of harassment. Over time, Ms La Foy felt marginalised, believing that her duties were being unfairly stripped away. She also claimed that she was denied international trip opportunities, which were part of her responsibilities, as well as leave requests being denied. The above issues culminated in Ms La Foy first referring a dispute to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration, and ultimately, the Labour Court, in which she claimed that the alleged harassment that she had experienced constituted unfair discrimination on arbitrary grounds.

Share by: