Moloko v Tshwane Economic Development Agency (JS741/17) [2020] ZALCJHB 237 (22 October 2020)

Moloko v Tshwane Economic Development Agency (JS741/17) [2020] ZALCJHB 237 (22 October 2020)

The court found that the applicant and his comparators performed work of equal value, as evidenced by their qualifications, responsibilities, and the fact that the applicant was able to step into the role of his comparator without issue. The salary differentiation was not based on any rational policy or system, but rather on arbitrary decisions related to previous earnings, which were unsupported by evidence or documentation. The respondent failed to justify the differentiation, and the conduct was found to be arbitrary, capricious, and detrimental to the applicant. The court held that the applicant was unfairly discriminated against on an arbitrary ground, as the differentiation...

Citation
[2020] ZALCJHB 237
Parties
Applicant: Floyd Moloko; Respondent: Tshwane Economic Development Agency
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 October 2020
Case Number
JS741/17
Procedural Posture
Labour Discrimination Application / Judgment
Outcome
The applicant's claim for unfair discrimination succeeded with costs.
Judges
M A Mathebula
Legal Topics
Unfair Discrimination, Equal Pay for Equal Work, Employment Equity Act, Arbitrary Ground Discrimination
Labour Law Unfair Discrimination Equal Pay for Equal Work Employment Equity Act Arbitrary Ground Discrimination

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Floyd Moloko

Applicant

Tshwane Economic Development Agency

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Discrimination Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was unfairly discriminated against on an arbitrary ground due to salary differentiation.
  2. 2 Whether the work performed by the applicant and his comparators was of equal value.
  3. 3 Whether the salary differentiation was rational and justified under the Employment Equity Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant and his comparators performed work of equal value, as evidenced by their qualifications, responsibilities, and the fact that the applicant was able to step into the role of his comparator without issue. The salary differentiation was not based on any rational policy or system, but rather on arbitrary decisions related to previous earnings, which were unsupported by evidence or documentation. The respondent failed to justify the differentiation, and the conduct was found to be arbitrary, capricious, and detrimental to the applicant. The court held that the applicant was unfairly discriminated against on an arbitrary ground, as the differentiation...

Court Disposition

The applicant's claim for unfair discrimination succeeded with costs.

Orders

  • The respondent must pay the applicant the difference in salary he would have earned had he been paid the same as his comparators, less tax and statutory deductions, together with interest at 10% a tempore mora.
  • The respondent must retrospectively adjust the applicant’s benefit packages to be similar to those received by his comparators.