Compensation for Stuttering Security Guard

The Labour Court in Johannesburg has set aside an arbitration award and ordered compensation for a security guard after finding that his employer had unfairly discriminated against him when they relocated him due to his speech disability. Justice Mmakau, who works as a security guard for Mantis Security (Pty) Ltd, successfully challenged an earlier ruling by the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) that had dismissed his claim of unfair discrimination under the Employment Equity Act.

The case involved Mmakau’s allegation that his employer moved him from a position where he interacted with members of the public to another location because he stutters. The security company had placed him at a client’s premises, as is standard practice in the security industry, where his duties required regular public interaction.

During the initial CCMA arbitration proceedings, Mantis Security conceded a crucial point: if it could be demonstrated that the decision to relocate Mmakau was motivated by his disability, this would constitute unfair discrimination. The dispute therefore turned on a straightforward factual question: was the employee’s transfer based on his stuttering, or were there other legitimate reasons?

Commissioner Frank Naidoo, who presided over the arbitration, found that Mmakau had failed to prove on the evidence that his relocation was disability-related, and dismissed the referral. However, Acting Judge H A van der Merwe subsequently determined that the commissioner had improperly dealt with the evidence, which warranted a review of the award. In the unopposed application heard on 15 January 2026, the Labour Court found that a proper case had been made out for reviewing the arbitration award.

The court then proceeded to set aside the commissioner’s decision and order compensation for Mmakau. In determining appropriate compensation under section 50(2)(a) of the Employment Equity Act, the court considered Mmakau’s monthly salary of R6,160 at the time of the CCMA referral. Advocate K M Carstens, appearing for Mmakau, referred the court to the precedent set in Smith v Kit Kat Group (Pty) Ltd, where an employee who was prevented from returning to work due to disability discrimination was awarded 24 months’ remuneration as damages and six months’ remuneration as compensation.

The court however noted that Mmakau had retained his employment throughout the dispute, unlike the employee in the Kit Kat case. Taking all circumstances into account, the court deemed compensation equivalent to four months’ remuneration appropriate, thereby awarding Mmakau R24,640.

You can read the full Mmakau v CCMA judgement here.