A South African woman who resigned from her job and made plans to move to KwaZulu-Natal after believing she was about to be employed by Transnet Freight Rail has failed in her legal challenge against the company after a court found that she had not been unfairly treated during the recruitment process.
The dispute stemmed from a recruitment process that began in September 2013, when Transnet advertised a vacancy for a horticultural assistant in Vryheid.
Rachel Nkhwatshirema applied for the position and was shortlisted for an interview along with two other candidates.
After waiting for feedback from the interview panel, Nkhwatshirema contacted the company and spoke to one of the panel members. She claimed that the panel member told her she would receive “good news” and advised her to keep checking her email for an update. The conversation took place between October 2013 and January 2014.
However, when she contacted the company again in February 2014, she was informed that her application had been unsuccessful and that Transnet had appointed the most suitable candidate, Sebatjane.
The court heard that Nkhwatshirema had been regarded as competent for the role, but Sebatjane scored higher in important assessment categories and was eventually selected for the position.
Dissatisfied with the decision, Nkhwatshirema argued that she had been unfairly treated during the recruitment process. She maintained that Transnet representatives had created the impression that she would be offered the position.
She told the court that she had resigned from her previous employment and prepared to relocate to KwaZulu-Natal after allegedly being informed that “good news” would follow regarding her application.
However, the court found that there was no evidence proving that Transnet had ever made a promise of employment.
Judge Reynaud Neil Daniels ruled that statements referring to possible “good news” were too unclear to establish any commitment from the company. The judgment stated that it was unlikely that Transnet would make a job offer and later withdraw it without a valid reason.
During the proceedings, Nkhwatshirema confirmed that her complaint was not based on racial or gender discrimination. She later appeared to suggest that her qualifications, and at another stage her age, may have affected the recruitment decision.
The court found that these allegations had not been properly set out and that some of the arguments differed from the original basis of her claim.
Transnet argued that Nkhwatshirema’s complaint appeared to be based on the belief that she had been viewed as “overqualified” for the position.
Judge Daniels held that even if the company had considered her “overqualified”, that alone would not amount to unfair or irrational discrimination. He said employers are entitled to evaluate candidates based on factors including suitability, experience, compatibility and the likelihood of long-term commitment.
The judge further noted that employers may sometimes be reluctant to appoint candidates who are overqualified because such individuals could view the role as a short-term opportunity before moving on to more senior positions.
The court stressed that the Employment Equity Act does not prevent employers from making distinctions between applicants. Instead, it only prohibits unfair discrimination that affects dignity or reinforces existing systemic disadvantage.
In this case, the court found that no such prejudice had been proven.
The judgment also addressed the reliability of the evidence presented during the hearing. Judge Daniels described Transnet’s witnesses as honest and consistent, while finding that Nkhwatshirema’s testimony contained contradictions and was unreliable in some respects.
Although the court dismissed her claim, it decided not to order Nkhwatshirema to pay Transnet’s legal costs.
Judge Daniels explained that labour courts do not automatically award costs against unsuccessful parties and considered that Nkhwatshirema had represented herself throughout the proceedings.
The court accepted that, although her legal interpretation was incorrect, she genuinely believed she was defending her constitutional right to equality and protection against unfair discrimination.
The case was therefore dismissed, with both parties ordered to cover their own legal expenses.
