Mokhwele and Others v Courier Freight Group (JS220/2011) [2014] ZALCJHB 82 (20 March 2014)

Mokhwele and Others v Courier Freight Group (JS220/2011) [2014] ZALCJHB 82 (20 March 2014)

The Applicants failed to establish that the exclusion from the profit share bonus amounted to unfair discrimination under the Employment Equity Act. The differentiation was based on objective grounds: the Applicants were employed by a subsidiary with different terms and conditions, received commission as part of their remuneration, and the Respondent had suffered financial losses during the relevant period. The payment of the ex gratia bonus to Speed Services staff, who were employed directly by SAPO and did not earn commission, was not analogous to the Applicants' situation. No listed or analogous ground of discrimination was established, nor was there evidence that the differentiation...

Citation
[2014] ZALCJHB 82
Parties
Applicant: Lebogang Mokwele and 2 Others; Respondent: The Courier Freight Group
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 March 2014
Case Number
JS220/2011
Procedural Posture
Labour Claim / Trial
Outcome
The claim is dismissed.
Judges
Malindi
Legal Topics
Unfair Discrimination, Employment Equity Act, Commission Policy, Remuneration Structure
Labour Law Unfair Discrimination Employment Equity Act Commission Policy Remuneration Structure

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lebogang Mokwele and 2 Others

Applicant

The Courier Freight Group

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Claim / Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the exclusion of the Applicants from the profit share bonus constituted unfair discrimination.
  2. 2 Whether the Applicants established a cause of action under the Employment Equity Act.
  3. 3 Whether objective grounds existed for the differentiation between the Applicants and other SAPO employees.

Ratio Decidendi

The Applicants failed to establish that the exclusion from the profit share bonus amounted to unfair discrimination under the Employment Equity Act. The differentiation was based on objective grounds: the Applicants were employed by a subsidiary with different terms and conditions, received commission as part of their remuneration, and the Respondent had suffered financial losses during the relevant period. The payment of the ex gratia bonus to Speed Services staff, who were employed directly by SAPO and did not earn commission, was not analogous to the Applicants' situation. No listed or analogous ground of discrimination was established, nor was there evidence that the differentiation...

Court Disposition

The claim is dismissed.

Orders

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