Mangena and Others v Fila South Africa (Pty) Ltd and Others (JS 343/05) [2009] ZALC 81; (2010) 31 ILJ 662 (LC) ; [2009] 12 BLLR 1224 (LC) (28 August 2009)

Mangena and Others v Fila South Africa (Pty) Ltd and Others (JS 343/05) [2009] ZALC 81; (2010) 31 ILJ 662 (LC) ; [2009] 12 BLLR 1224 (LC) (28 August 2009)

The applicants failed to establish, even on a prima facie basis, that Shabalala and McMullin performed the same or similar work. The evidence showed that McMullin's responsibilities were more complex and required greater skill and judgment, while Shabalala's work was mechanical and elementary. There was no factual foundation for a claim of equal pay for equal work, nor was there evidence to support an alternative claim for equal pay for work of equal value. The applicants also failed to show any causal link between the pay differential and race, birth, or union membership. The claims relating to Chiya and the alleged favouring of SACCAWU members were dismissed due to lack of evidence and...

Citation
[2009] ZALC 81
Parties
Applicant: Philemon Shabalala; Applicant: Headman Chiya; Respondent: Fila South Africa (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Footwear Trading CC; Respondent: Footwear Trading Co (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Footwear Trading (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 August 2009
Case Number
JS 343/05
Procedural Posture
Trial Judgment / Final Judgment After Trial and Application for Absolution From the Instance
Outcome
The applicants' claims of unfair discrimination are dismissed.
Judges
Van Niekerk
Legal Topics
Employment Equity Act, Equal Pay, Unfair Discrimination, Burden of Proof, Remuneration Comparison
Labour Law Employment Equity Act Equal Pay Unfair Discrimination Burden of Proof Remuneration Comparison

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Philemon Shabalala

Applicant

Headman Chiya

Applicant

Fila South Africa (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Footwear Trading CC

Respondent

Footwear Trading Co (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Footwear Trading (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Trial Judgment / Final Judgment After Trial and Application for Absolution From the Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Shabalala was discriminated against based on race and/or colour in comparison to Delia McMullin and/or NEWU membership.
  2. 2 Whether Chiya was discriminated against based on birth and/or family relations in comparison to Khaya Ngxongo and/or NEWU membership.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent gave increases and/or promotions to employees who joined SACCAWU, amounting to unfair discrimination.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to establish, even on a prima facie basis, that Shabalala and McMullin performed the same or similar work. The evidence showed that McMullin's responsibilities were more complex and required greater skill and judgment, while Shabalala's work was mechanical and elementary. There was no factual foundation for a claim of equal pay for equal work, nor was there evidence to support an alternative claim for equal pay for work of equal value. The applicants also failed to show any causal link between the pay differential and race, birth, or union membership. The claims relating to Chiya and the alleged favouring of SACCAWU members were dismissed due to lack of evidence and...

Court Disposition

The applicants' claims of unfair discrimination are dismissed.

Orders

  • The claim of unfair discrimination referred by Mr. Philemon Shabalala is dismissed.
  • Mr. Philemon Shabalala and Mr. Headman Chiya are to pay the costs of these proceedings, jointly and severally, but limited to the costs of the trial (including the costs of preparing for trial) and except that Mr. Chiya's liability does not extend to proceedings conducted after the Court's ruling on the application...