Business Day - Business Law and Tax Review - - BUSINESS LAW & TAX REVIEW -

depart­ment in other ge­o­graph­i­cal ar­eas (Lim­popo, Mpumalanga, North West and KwaZulu-Natal) who had been em­ployed as Man­agers: Le­gal Ser­vices were be­ing re­mu­ner­ated in ac­cor­dance with level 9 whereas she, who was em­ployed in the West­ern Cape, was be­ing paid in ac­cor­dance with level 8 de­spite oc­cu­py­ing the same post.

The court noted that an em­ployee seek­ing relief in terms of sec­tion 6(1) of the Em­ploy­ment Eq­uity Act must be able to prove that there was dif­fer­en­tial con­duct which amount to dis­crim­i­na­tion and that such dis­crim­i­na­tion was un­fair. Dis­crim­i­na­tion will be present where the con­duct im­pairs the em­ployee’s hu­man dig­nity.

The court found that it was en­tirely ar­bi­trary con­duct for an em­ployee who is re­mu­ner­ated more sim­ply be­cause they re­side in a par­tic­u­lar prov­ince. Al­though this case was de­cided be­fore the Amend­ment Act which specif­i­cally in­tro­duces the no­tion of an “ar­bi­trary ground” into the leg­is­la­tion, the court none­the­less found that the con­duct in­fringed on Duma’s dig­nity. The court found that

Pic­ture: iSTOCK

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from South Africa

© PressReader. All rights reserved.