Louw v Golden Arrow Service (Pty) Ltd (C 37/97) [1999] ZALC 12; 2001 (1) SA 218 (LC) (2 February 1999)

Louw v Golden Arrow Service (Pty) Ltd (C 37/97) [1999] ZALC 12; 2001 (1) SA 218 (LC) (2 February 1999)

The court found that the applicant failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the jobs of buyer and warehouse supervisor were of equal value. Expert evidence established at least one Peromnes grade difference between the positions, justifying the salary differential. The applicant did not demonstrate that the wage gap was attributable to racial discrimination, either directly or indirectly. The court held that disproportionality in salaries was not proven, and no inference of unfair discrimination could be drawn. The burden of proof remained with the applicant, who did not discharge it. Consequently, the claim for equal pay based on alleged discrimination failed.

Citation
[1999] ZALC 12
Parties
Applicant: Michael Louw; Respondent: Golden Arrow Bus Services (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 February 1999
Case Number
C 37/97
Procedural Posture
Residual Unfair Labour Practice / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Absolution from the instance granted; application not finally dismissed.
Judges
A A Landman
Legal Topics
Equal Pay for Equal Work, Unfair Discrimination, Burden of Proof, Residual Unfair Labour Practice
Labour Law Equal Pay for Equal Work Unfair Discrimination Burden of Proof Residual Unfair Labour Practice

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 31 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Louw

Applicant

Golden Arrow Bus Services (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Residual Unfair Labour Practice / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the difference in salaries between the applicant and Mr Beneke constitutes direct discrimination on the grounds of race, colour or ethnic origin.
  2. 2 Whether the difference in salaries constitutes indirect discrimination due to disparate impact on black employees.
  3. 3 Whether the discrimination, if any, is unfair in terms of s 9(5) of the Constitution read with item 2 of Schedule 7 of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the jobs of buyer and warehouse supervisor were of equal value. Expert evidence established at least one Peromnes grade difference between the positions, justifying the salary differential. The applicant did not demonstrate that the wage gap was attributable to racial discrimination, either directly or indirectly. The court held that disproportionality in salaries was not proven, and no inference of unfair discrimination could be drawn. The burden of proof remained with the applicant, who did not discharge it. Consequently, the claim for equal pay based on alleged discrimination failed.

Court Disposition

Absolution from the instance granted; application not finally dismissed.

Orders

  • Absolution from the instance is ordered.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the respondent's costs.