As a result of the intervention of Sushila Dhever, an attorney at the Legal Resources Centre (LRC) in Johannesburg, a vulnerable Hindu widow, Mrs Gangadevi Pillay, was able to successfully claim a dependant’s benefit from the Department of Labour. She was entitled to the benefit in terms of Section 30 of the Unemployment Insurance Amendment Act of 2003 (the Act). The benefit took Mrs Pillay over two years to claim.

Background

On 15 January 2007, Mrs Pillay went to the Department’s Labour Centre in Alberton to apply for the dependant’s benefit. Her husband had died in June 2006. After waiting three months for feedback on her application, in April 2007, she was informed by the Department that her application was rejected because she applied one month late. According to the Act applications for dependant’s benefits have to be lodged within six months after the death of the breadwinner. However, the act further states that the Commissioner has discretionary powers to condone applications lodged outside the six month period when an applicant can show ‘just cause’ for lodging the application late.

According to the tenets of Hinduism, a grieving widow is not permitted to leave the marital home for a period of seven months after the death of her spouse. During this period a Hindu widow observes the rituals and prayers performed during bereavement. In keeping with the tenets of her religion, Mrs Pillay was unable to make the application for the benefit within the requisite six months.

After her claim was rejected, and on the advice of an official at the Department, Mrs Pillay was assisted with lodging an appeal application to the Regional Appeal Committee (RAC) on 14 August 2007. In her appeal application Mrs Pillay set out the reasons why her application was one month out of time. However, on 27 July 2007 the RAC rejected her appeal application without considering the fact that as a Hindu widow she was not permitted to leave her home to lodge the application.

LRC Intervention

After her appeal was rejected by the RAC, Mrs Pillay tried to obtain legal assistance from various organizations. All of Mrs Pillay’s attempts to seek legal assistance proved futile as many of these organizations turned her away. She came to the LRC in January 2009 -as a last resort. After consulting with her, Ms Dhever drafted an appeal application to the National Appeal Committee (NAC) against the decision of the RAC and simultaneously applied for condonation for the late referral of the dispute to the NAC. The basis of the appeal to the NAC was that the RAC failed to consider the ‘just cause’ discretion when reaching its decision and that the RAC’s failure to consider Mrs Pillay’s particular circumstances constituted unfair discrimination on the basis of her religion.

After the appeal application to the NAC was lodged, several correspondences were exchanged between the Department and Ms Dhever. Settlement negotiations were entered into between Ms Dhever and the Department in early May 2009. On 13 May 2009, Mrs Pillay was notified that her application had been approved. On 15 May 2009, the Department paid out the benefit to Mrs Pillay.

Like many applicants for the dependant’s benefit, Mrs Pillay was not informed by officials that she could lodge a further appeal to the NAC after her appeal application was rejected by the RAC, and she was unaware of the ‘just cause’ provision of the Act. Many officials at the Department were also unaware of this provision. The LRC’s intervention has brought this to the attention of officials at the Department and the Department has undertaken to work with the LRC to re-assess some of these cases.

On a broader level it is hoped that the intervention by the LRC will assist all people applying for the dependant’s benefit who were and are affected by the inability of officials to implement the above mentioned provisions of the Act correctly.