Mugg & Bean waitress fired after ‘this is not India’ remark wins Labour Court battle

Mugg & Bean waitress fired after ‘this is not India’ remark wins Labour Court battle. News Crime and CourtsMugg & Bean waitress fired after ‘this is not India’ remark wins Labour Court battleSinenhlanhla Masilela|Published 1 hour agoAsk AI 5minMugg & Bean waitress wins unfair-dismissal case over ‘this is not India’ remark.

What happened

Image: Ai-GeneratedA Mugg & Bean waitress who was accused by her employer of making a racist remark about her manager’s Indian roots has won her Labour Court battle after the court upheld a finding that her dismissal was both substantively and procedurally unfair. A Labour Court upheld a finding that a Mugg & Bean waitress’s dismissal was substantively and procedurally unfair but reduced her leave-pay award and ordered the outstanding remuneration to be recalculated. The Labour Court accepted that Tshiala had made the “this is not India” remark.

Marie Tshiala, who worked as a waitress at Mugg & Bean on Kloof in Cape Town, was summarily dismissed following a confrontation with the restaurant’s general manager, Premilla Anvary, in June 2024. The employer further alleged that Tshiala had made a racist and discriminatory remark during the confrontation, with Anvary saying the waitress had told her to “go back to India”. Employer accused waitress of racist remarkDuring the arbitration, Anvary described Tshiala as rude, aggressive and disrespectful and said she had displayed a pattern of inappropriate behaviour towards management and colleagues.

The Labour Court rejected the employer’s argument that the commissioner had failed to consider the evidence surrounding the alleged misconduct.

The wider picture

No disciplinary hearing before dismissalThe court also found that Tshiala’s dismissal was procedurally unfair because she had not been subjected to any disciplinary process before she was fired. Court upholds R15,120 compensationThe Labour Court consequently upheld the CCMA’s finding that Tshiala’s dismissal was substantively and procedurally unfair. But the Labour Court found that she had worked only until June 2024 and had accrued 7. Interest on the corrected leave-pay amount was ordered to run from the date of the Labour Court order.

Review application dismissedThe Labour Court dismissed the employer’s review application insofar as it sought to overturn the findings that Tshiala’s dismissal was substantively and procedurally unfair. Ask AIRelated Topics:crime and courtlabour courtlabour disputerestuarantWednesday, September 16, 2026NewsCrime and CourtsSouth AfricaAfricaWorldBRICSEducationEnergyEnvironmentFeel GoodGovernment at WorkOpinionPoliticsOpinionOpinionNewsPoliticsEntertainmentLifestyleTechSportBusinessJobsEconomyPropertyWindow on ChinaHybrid WorkingEntertainmentCelebrity NewsStreamingMoviesMusicBooksWhats OnJoburgDurbanCape TownPretoriaOpinionLifestyleHealthBeautyFashionFoodRelationshipsParentingCompetitionsOpinionTravelLocalInternationalTechSoftware and InternetEsportsOpinionSportSoccerPSLRugbyCricketMMABettingOpinionHorse RacingMotoringReviewsLaunchesIndustry NewsMotorsport When asked what Tshiala had said, Sibanda testified that she had told Anvary: “this is not India”, along with other allegedly disrespectful comments.

Court finds no valid reason for dismissalHowever, Judge T Gandidze found that the CCMA commissioner had been entitled to conclude that the evidence did not establish a valid reason for Tshiala’s dismissal.

What has been reported

“The finding that Tshiala’s dismissal was procedurally unfair was not only reasonable but also correct,” the court ruled. The court declined to interfere with this amount, finding that the commissioner had properly exercised his discretion after considering Tshiala’s approximately two years of employment and the fact that she had been unemployed for more than a month when the arbitration took place. Leave-pay award reducedHowever, the court reduced the amount awarded for leave pay.

Court changes period for outstanding remunerationThe court also found that the commissioner had used the wrong period when calculating Tshiala’s alleged outstanding remuneration. The court said Tshiala would likely have approached the CCMA sooner if her shifts had been reduced in 2022. If the parties could not agree, either party could approach the court for a determination. The court corrected the leave-pay and outstanding-remuneration awards but left the R15,120 compensation award intact. Dispute followed CCMA claimThe dispute arose after Anvary learnt that Tshiala had lodged a claim with the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) over what she alleged was outstanding remuneration after her shifts had been reduced.

What happens next

Tshiala had been employed by the business since November 2021 under fixed-term contracts. Her final contract covered January to December 2024. Her shifts had been reduced from six per week to three, prompting her to lodge a claim with the CCMA seeking outstanding remuneration. After learning about the claim, Anvary called Tshiala to her office and accused her of lying in the claim. The exchange ended with Anvary instructing Tshiala to leave the business immediately. Tshiala subsequently referred an unfair dismissal dispute to the CCMA.

She said Tshiala had also called a manager a coward and had been insubordinate.