A man has brought a landmark case that has the potential to end age discrimination in the employment market.
Elias Sello Ntsihlele brought the case to the Labour Court of South Africa, arguing that Denel, a state-owned entity, practised unfair discrimination offensive to the Employment Equity Act.
He alleges that he was unfairly excluded from consideration for two executive positions despite being highly qualified and experienced.
According to his affidavit, the primary reason for his exclusion was his age, as he would turn 65 before the end of the five-year term.
This criterion, he claims, was not part of the job requirements and constitutes age-based discrimination.
Ntsihlele is seeking compensation of R22.326 million for financial and emotional damages, along with corrective measures to prevent similar incidents in the future.
He has also requested a fair reconsideration of his application and a review of recruitment policies and practices.
The matter is set down for Friday, September 12.
Ntsihlele said the case is not only important for his personal circumstances but also for advancing the principles of equality and fair labour practices in South Africa.
The former CEO of Denel Dynamics previously held high-ranking positions at Denel, including interim CEO of Denel Vehicle Systems and board chairperson.
He had applied for the roles of group executive commercial and group executive: guided weapons in September 2024 but was disqualified, unfairly, he claims, despite his extensive qualifications and experience, because of his age.
In his founding affidavit, Ntsihlele outlines a series of events that he believes demonstrate procedural and substantive unfairness in Denel’s recruitment process.
For the group executive commercial position, he was initially shortlisted and interviewed by a recruitment agency, Transearch, which praised his qualifications and experience.
However, he was later informed that his age was a concern for Denel’s leadership, and he was ultimately excluded from the list.
Similarly, for the group executive guided weapons role, Ntsihlele submitted his application but received no response.
He suspects that his age was again the deciding factor, as Denel has yet to fill the position.
Ntsihlele argues that Denel’s actions amount to unfair discrimination under South Africa’s Employment Equity Act, which prohibits discrimination based on age unless it is an inherent requirement of the job.
He contends that his age has no bearing on his ability to perform the duties of either position, given his proven track record in the defence industry.
Ntsihlele’s legal strategy is rooted in the principles of fairness, equality, and merit-based employment.
He asserts that Denel’s decision to exclude him based on age is a clear violation of the Employment Equity Act, which protects employees and job applicants from unfair discrimination.
He emphasises that age was not listed as a criterion in the job advertisements, making its use in the selection process arbitrary and unjustifiable.
Ntsihlele also points to irregularities in the recruitment process, including interviews being conducted before the official closing date for applications.
He argues that this lack of transparency undermines the fairness of the process and raises questions about Denel’s commitment to equal opportunity.
Ntsihlele references landmark rulings that reinforce the principle of non-discrimination in employment.
For example, he cites the Constitutional Court’s decision in Hoffmann v South African Airways, which emphasised that employment decisions must be free from arbitrary discrimination.
He also draws on cases like McPherson v. University of KwaZulu-Natal, where age-based exclusion was deemed unlawful.
Ntsihlele highlights the emotional and professional harm caused by Denel’s actions. He argues that being unfairly excluded from consideration has damaged his reputation and employment prospects, warranting compensation.
