Mkhatshwa v Shanduka Coal (Pty) Ltd (JS28/2016) [2022] ZALCJHB 177; (2022) 43 ILJ 2524 (LC) (6 July 2022)

Mkhatshwa v Shanduka Coal (Pty) Ltd (JS28/2016) [2022] ZALCJHB 177; (2022) 43 ILJ 2524 (LC) (6 July 2022)

The applicant failed to establish that his race was the determining factor for the pay disparity between himself and his white comparators. The evidence showed that the roles of Mine Managers of operational mines and decommissioned mines were materially different in scope, responsibility, and demands. The respondent’s justification for the pay difference was based on the actual functions and responsibilities of the positions, not race. The applicant did not demonstrate a causal nexus between his race and the lower remuneration, nor did he show that he performed work of equal value to his comparators. The respondent’s evidence regarding the objective basis for the pay distinction was not...

Citation
[2022] ZALCJHB 177
Parties
Applicant: Mkhatshwa, Mbeka Sipho; Respondent: Shanduka Coal (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 July 2022
Case Number
JS28/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
The applicant's claim is dismissed.
Judges
Nkutha-Nkontwana
Legal Topics
Employment Equity Act, Pay Discrimination, Equal Pay for Equal Work, Onus of Proof, Job Evaluation, Remuneration Disparity
Labour Law Employment Equity Act Pay Discrimination Equal Pay for Equal Work Onus of Proof Job Evaluation Remuneration Disparity

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 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mkhatshwa, Mbeka Sipho

Applicant

Shanduka Coal (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was unfairly discriminated against in pay on the basis of race under section 6(4) of the Employment Equity Act.
  2. 2 Whether the work performed by the applicant was of equal value to that performed by his comparators.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's justification for the pay disparity was fair and rational.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to establish that his race was the determining factor for the pay disparity between himself and his white comparators. The evidence showed that the roles of Mine Managers of operational mines and decommissioned mines were materially different in scope, responsibility, and demands. The respondent’s justification for the pay difference was based on the actual functions and responsibilities of the positions, not race. The applicant did not demonstrate a causal nexus between his race and the lower remuneration, nor did he show that he performed work of equal value to his comparators. The respondent’s evidence regarding the objective basis for the pay distinction was not...

Court Disposition

The applicant's claim is dismissed.

Orders

  • The applicant’s claim is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.