SINGLE BLOG ARTICLE

The 2014 amendments to the Employment Equity Act (EEA) state that people who perform the same work, or work of similar value, must receive the same or similar remuneration. Recently, a number of significant labour law cases have been adjudicated which put this principle to the test.

Does this principle apply to all employees?

The case of South African Municipal Workers’ Union obo Sithole / Alfred Duma Local Municipality and others – (2018) 27 CCMA 1.17.1 answers this question. It also shows that an award that the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) makes is the salary at the time of lodging your application for an equal treatment claim and not that at the time of the discrimination taking place.

Facts of the case

The employee referred a dispute to the CCMA regarding the salary grade on which he was placed. This was after an integration of municipalities had happened. A settlement agreement was concluded with the employee to resolve the dispute. The employee then referred another dispute relating to unfair discrimination. The employee had to apply for condonation because of the delay and it was granted.

The employer contended that the CCMA lacked jurisdiction because the employee was earning above the threshold. (Currently the threshold is R205 433.) The Commissioner noted that it had been proven that the employee’s salary was above the threshold at the time of the referral. It was argued that the applicable salary was that which the employee earned at the time of the alleged discrimination (being 2000). The consequences of said alleged discrimination were “ongoing”.

The Commissioner held that it would be irrational to set a threshold that was relevant in 2000 when the referral was made in 2017. The CCMA may arbitrate the dispute only with the consent of the employers. This consent had not been granted by the employer. Accordingly, the Commission lacked jurisdiction to arbitrate the dispute. The application was dismissed.

All the rules of evidence still apply in equal pay cases

To succeed in a legal matter, a certain standard of evidence needs to be upheld. This is true for all legal proceedings. Equal treatment cases are no exception.

In Solidarity obo Clark and another / Eskom SOC Ltd – (2017)26 CCMA 6.12.25:

  • Project managers graded at salary level M14 took exception when two project managers were subsequently appointed on the grade M16 (a higher level).
  • The CCMA Commissioner noted that the EEA requires employees to refer disputes within six months of the Act or omission of the alleged discrimination.

Certain acts of discrimination may have continuing consequences, which makes applying for a late referral (beyond six months) unnecessary. If the alleged discrimination is continuing then the six months does not apply.

The employees had based their case on an “arbitrary ground” which was “the failure of the employer to comply with its policies and procedures”. The employer contended that the work performed by the employees on the two salary levels was different and that their job output was not of equal value. Where arbitrary grounds are relied on, the employees must prove that conduct amounts to unfair discrimination.

The employees had failed to indicate the differentiation they complained impaired their human dignity. No objective evidence had been presented by the employees to prove that the jobs were the same or substantially similar. The Commissioner ruled that the employees had failed to prove that they were discriminated against on any arbitrary or listed ground. The application was dismissed.

Unhappiness doesn’t mean that there is evidence of unequal treatment

The test in equal pay cases is that there must be unfairness and a discriminatory ground (including arbitrary) as well as the potential to impair the dignity of the employee. The regulations published with the Employment Equity Act (EEA) list numerous grounds that justify pay differentials. These include:

  • Regulation 7 of the EEA contains grounds to justify differences in remuneration.
  • If differences in the terms and conditions of employment are ‘fair and rational’, an employer can differentiate between employees by considering one or more of the following factors:
    – Seniority and length of service;
    – Qualifications, ability, competence or potential;
    – Performance, quantity and/or quality of work (if employees are subject to the same performance evaluation system which is consistently applied);
    – Demotion owing to operational requirements;
    – Temporary employment to gain experience and/or training (internships, learnerships);
    – Shortage of relevant skill or the market value in a particular job classification;
    – Any other relevant factor that is not discriminatory.

The case of Sethole and others v Dr Kenneth Kuanda District Municipality (Case no: JS 576/13, September 2017) (LC) illustrates how this section may be misinterpreted.

Facts of the case

The dispute was essentially about the employees’ appointment as Environmental Health Practitioners (EHP) rather than Pollution Control Officers (PCOs). Being paid less than another employee is certainly “differential treatment” but it can only amount to “discrimination” if the two employees are performing equal work or work of equal value:

  • PCOs are required to have a BTech degree or a four-year BSc degree plus a minimum of four years’ experience.
  • The post of EHP, in contrast, only requires a National Diploma.

The Court found that it is a fairly universal practice that different pay grades apply to different jobs and that there is no way this can be seen as discrimination in a legal sense. In addition to the above, the employees failed to identify the grounds on which the discrimination was established. The Court therefore dismissed the case.

As can be seen from the above cases, many employees are trying their luck with disputes involving the principle of Equal Pay for Work of Equal Value. As an employer, your processes and procedures need to solid so that no one can find a weak spot in your company’s pay systems to exploit.

Johnny Goldberg is a labour law expert.

RELATED POSTS

How to determine if an Employee is part of a Designated Group

Posted on August 16, 2018

Building resilience

Posted on August 10, 2018

When is enough… too much?

Posted on July 20, 2018

Skills Expert Mailer 3/18

Posted on July 6, 2018

Labour Law Newsflash: Fixed-term contracts are alive and well

Posted on June 29, 2018

Insights into the odiousness of OCD

Posted on June 22, 2018

What is the benefit of a learnership for your company?

Posted on May 25, 2018

Depression in the workplace – shifting perspective and changing the conversation

Posted on May 17, 2018

B-BBEE interpretations

Posted on May 14, 2018

Labour Law Newsflash 4/18: Rhetoric everywhere but what are the solutions?

Posted on May 7, 2018

Managing incapacity in the workplace is a specialist’s domain

Posted on April 19, 2018

Life Is A Team Sport

Posted on April 11, 2018

Proposed amendments to the B-BBEE Codes of Good Practice

Posted on April 5, 2018

Labour Law Newsflash: 3/18

Posted on March 22, 2018

Economic Impact of Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment or BEE

Posted on January 25, 2018

Amended Financial Services Sector and Construction Sector Codes

Posted on December 8, 2017

Get to know your Codes of Good Practice

Posted on December 1, 2017

What does the Employment Equity Act say about Disability?

Posted on November 23, 2017

Labour Law Newsflash 12

Posted on November 15, 2017

Equal Pay: Gender Pay Gaps

Posted on November 3, 2017

Labour Law Newsflash 11 of 2017

Posted on October 24, 2017

How to establish effective working relationships with SETAs

Posted on October 17, 2017

Creating a meaningful partnership with your workplace entrants

Posted on October 6, 2017

Sick notes: What does the law say?

Posted on September 22, 2017

How You Can Improve Your Leadership Brand

Posted on September 6, 2017

How Does Black Ownership Affect Preferential Procurement?

Posted on August 31, 2017

The rise of the gig worker

Posted on August 24, 2017

Equal Pay: Internal vs. External Parity

Posted on August 17, 2017

What Is Considered To Be ‘Fair’ in a Disciplinary Hearing?

Posted on August 17, 2017

Who Are Designated Groups Under the Employment Equity Act (EEA)?

Posted on August 16, 2017

What Is The B-BBEE Act?

Posted on August 15, 2017

How To Become The Manager Everyone Loves

Posted on August 14, 2017

Why we need women in the workplace

Posted on August 10, 2017

Make Sure Your Evidence Is Reliable In Your Disciplinary Enquiry

Posted on August 10, 2017

7 Steps You Need to Take Before You Institute Disciplinary Proceedings

Posted on August 8, 2017

Operational Requirements vs Incapacity: What is the difference?

Posted on August 7, 2017

BEE Verification Professional Regulator and Statement 005 on BEE Verification

Posted on August 3, 2017

What is the law about family responsibility leave?

Posted on August 3, 2017

Who are designated employers?

Posted on August 2, 2017

What all business owners need to know about non-compliance with the Employment Equity Act

Posted on August 1, 2017

The secret to the Skills Development Act

Posted on July 31, 2017

Labour Newsflash Edition 8

Posted on July 28, 2017

Who must comply with the Employment Equity Act?

Posted on July 27, 2017

Equal Pay for Work of Equal Value

Posted on July 25, 2017

Double check your employees’ qualifications

Posted on July 20, 2017

All you need to know about the UIF amendments

Posted on July 19, 2017

Reviewed B-BBEE Charter for SA’s Mining and Minerals Industry

Posted on July 14, 2017

Reviewed B-BBEE Charter for SA’s Mining and Minerals Industry

Posted on July 13, 2017

The importance of the difference between an employee and an independent contractor

Posted on July 13, 2017

The legal consequences of not respecting your fellow employees’ cultural beliefs

Posted on July 13, 2017

The importance of Collective Agreements during Strikes

Posted on July 12, 2017

Labour Newsflash Edition 7

Posted on July 6, 2017

What is the state of your organisation’s transformation?

Posted on June 30, 2017

Avoiding the Pitfalls of Equal Pay

Posted on June 22, 2017

Developments in B-BBEE

Posted on June 14, 2017

Labour Law Update 6

Posted on June 8, 2017

Emotional Intelligence

Posted on June 1, 2017

Various B-BBEE Related Matters

Posted on May 25, 2017

Labour Newsflash Edition 5

Posted on May 18, 2017

Are we getting training right?

Posted on May 11, 2017

Employment Equity Compliance: Reporting Obligations

Posted on April 14, 2017

Various Short B-BBEE Issues

Posted on March 31, 2017

The Amended Forestry Sector Code

Posted on March 31, 2017

Labour Newsflash 3

Posted on March 24, 2017

Labour Newsflash 2

Posted on February 24, 2017

Skills Development: Important Updates

Posted on February 17, 2017

National Minimum Wage Announcement

Posted on February 10, 2017

Is African Engagement Poised for Take-Off?

Posted on February 10, 2017

Procurement Regulations

Posted on January 27, 2017

Year End Message

Posted on December 15, 2016

Status of Sector Codes and B-BBEE Transactions

Posted on December 9, 2016

Employment Equity Reporting online deadline is looming

Posted on December 2, 2016

Skills Development Update

Posted on November 25, 2016

Newsflash: The National Minimum Wage

Posted on November 21, 2016

Labour Newsflash Edition 12

Posted on November 18, 2016

Determining “Value” under Equal Pay for Work of Equal Value

Posted on November 8, 2016

B-BBEE Newsflash: Empowering Supplier Status Change

Posted on November 3, 2016

The effect of the new B-BBEE Codes on the vehicle manufacturing industry

Posted on October 28, 2016

Labour Newsflash Edition 11

Posted on October 21, 2016

COMMENTS

There are 0 comments on this post.

ADD YOUR COMMENT