A labour dispute erupted after a black female employee at the National Zoological Gardens of South Africa turned to the labour court as she felt that her employer discriminated against her by employing an Indian female to exactly the same position she held, but at a higher salary scale.
The employee (applicant) turned to the Johannesburg Labour Court where she based her case on unfair discrimination in terms of the Employment Equity Act.
Both the applicant and the woman employed in the same capacity as her, only identified as Ms M, occupy the same position of payroll and benefits officer.
They perform the same work and responsibilities and are both at the same level within the employer’s organisational structure. The applicant occupied the post from 2013, and Ms M took up her position in October 2018.
At the time the applicant referred her dispute to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA), Ms M earned several thousand a year more than her from the start.
The acting human resources manager testified that Ms M applied for and was appointed to the vacant post she currently occupies.
Prior to being appointed, she was offered a lower annual remuneration package. However, she successfully negotiated a higher annual remuneration, which is the same that she received at her erstwhile employer.
Due to the fact that the employer sought to attract HR personnel with the skills needed to manage the payroll and benefits function without the need for external support, the employer was prepared to agree to the remuneration that Ms M requested.
The court was told that the decision to do so was not motivated by Ms M’s race, but rather she had the skills required to perform in a new and more demanding environment and thus justified.
In responding to the argument that when Ms M commenced her employment, it was the applicant who had to train her on the payroll system, the witness stated that training a new payroll officer on the current payroll system was not a new phenomenon.
The applicant has likewise received training on the same system when she was employed.
The applicant, in turn, argued that the advert Ms M had responded to was silent on the need for special skills.
In disputing the notion that Ms M came with special skills, the applicant stated she trained her on the payroll system, how to use the spreadsheets, and on the employer’s policies.
The applicant, however, did concede that such training is expected when any new person is employed in HR, as systems and policies differ from employer to employer.
The applicant confirmed there was nothing untoward with Ms M negotiating a higher salary, but she nevertheless perceived it as unfair that Ms M received more income for performing the same tasks as compared to herself.
The applicant testified that she experienced emotional and mental anguish, following what she perceived to be unfair discrimination.
There are no rules of engagement when parties embark on salary negotiations, Acting Judge M Naidoo said. She added that no unfairness arose when the employer and Ms M negotiated her salary.
“The employer’s appetite to negotiate with Ms M was underpinned by it wanting to attract the right calibre of employees to work in what it perceived to be a more demanding environment, which was brought about subsequent to it being transferred to the SANBI,” the judge said.
In turning down the application, she said that the mere fact that two employees from different ethnic backgrounds perform the same work yet receive different salaries does not in itself lend to the conclusion that the lower-paid employee is being unfairly discriminated against on grounds of their race.
“There is no link between the pay disparity and the different race groups they respectively belong to,” the judge said.
Pretoria News