length of service Archives

Arbitrary wage discrimination: Rational wage differential?

by GilesFiles | Apr 14, 2025 | 2020 onwards, AB1 - Fairness principle or concept, André van Niekerk, Appeals, Appeals - leave, Causes and defences, Courts, Declaratory, Disallowed, EEA 1998, EEA Chpt II ss 5-11, EEA Codes, Employ Equity (LRL 12), Equal pay and value, Insights, Interpretation etc, Judges, Jurisdiction & powers, Labour Appeal Court, Labour Relations, LAC judges, Legal Practice, Legislation, LRA 07: 112-184 Dispute, LRA 1995, Management, Managerial prerogative, Manufacturing, Objective - correctness, Orders, Parties, Pay differentials, Private enterprises, Resolving disputes (LRL 3), Review tests, Sectors, Selected judges, Statutes (LRL 2)-work, Statutory, Topics, Work Science Institute | 0 |

For subscribers only Whilst some judgment summaries are available to all, this judgment summary is reserved for subscribers only. If you are already a subscriber, you can login to see this judgment summary. If you cannot login,...

Equal pay dispute: Comparators with longer service

by GilesFiles | Aug 13, 2023 | AF - Internal equity external parity, Applications, Causes and defences, CCMA awards, CCMA members, Courts, Declaratory, EEA Chpt II ss 5-11, Employ Equity (LRL 12), Equal pay and value, Insights, Interpretation etc, Judges, Jurisdiction & powers, Labour Relations, Legal Practice, Management, Orders, Parties, Pay differentials, Private enterprises, Sectors, Statutory, Topics, Trade | 0 |

Upswu obo M v Tiger Brands (Pty) Ltd What distinguishes a dispute about equal pay from a dispute about equal value and why is length of service a relevant factor? “[36] In the Pioneer case, the Court stated as follows in...

Inherent job requirements: Service length arbitrary?

by GilesFiles | Aug 22, 2022 | 2020 onwards, AF - Internal equity external parity, Allowed, Appeals, Appeals - leave, Applications, Bill of Rights, Causes and defences, CCMA Rules-old, Costs, Costs not awarded, Courts, Declaratory, Discrimination (LRL 11), EEA 1998, EEA Chpt II ss 5-11, Employ Equity (LRL 12), Equal pay and value, Evidence & onus, False assumptions, Insights, Interpretation etc, Joinder, Judges, Jurisdiction & powers, Labour Court, Labour Court judges, Labour Relations, LC Rules-old, Legal Practice, Legislation, LRA 07: 112-184 Dispute, LRA 1995, Management, Manufacturing, Orders, Parties, Private enterprises, RGO Lagrange, Rules Codes & Manual, Sectors, Statutes (LRL 2)-work, Statutory, Topics | 0 |

Premier FMCG (Pty) Ltd t/a Blue Ribbon Bakery v Fawu Why is the binding ILO Convention 111 seemingly ignored when considering defence of inherent job requirements in context of discrimination? “[24] Accordingly, the...

Seniority justifying differentials: Valid rational reason?

by GilesFiles | Sep 5, 2018 | AF - Internal equity external parity, CCMA awards, Courts, Differentiation not discrimination, Discrimination (LRL 11), EEA 1998, EEA Chpt II ss 5-11, EEA Chpt III ss 12-27, Employ Equity (LRL 12), Insights, Labour Relations, Legal Practice, Sectors, Statutes (LRL 2)-work, Topics | 0 |

African Meat Industry & Allied Trade Union / Premier FMCG (Pty) LtdSeniority justifying differentials in pay does not accord with the principles of proportional pay differentials because it completely distorts the...

Newly appointed employees: Differentiation not discrimination

by GilesFiles | Apr 19, 2016 | 2016, 2016, AF - Internal equity external parity, Anton Steenkamp, Collective Bargaining (LRL 5), Courts, Differentiation not discrimination, Direct and indirect discrimination, Discrimination (LRL 11), EEA 1998, EEA Chpt II ss 5-11, Employ Equity (LRL 12), Equal pay and value, ILO Convention 111/1958, Insights, Judges, Labour Court, Labour Court judges, Labour Relations, Landmark judgments, Statutes (LRL 2)-work, Work Science Institute | 4 |

Pioneer Foods (Pty) Ltd v Workers Against Regression (WAR) (C687/15) [2016] ZALCCT 14 [2016] 9 BLLR 942 ; (2016) ILJ 2872 (LC) (19 April 2016) per Anton Steenkamp J. Newly appointed employees do not have the right to demand the...

Sidumo test restated: No self-standing grounds

by GilesFiles | Nov 4, 2013 | 2014 and earlier, Allowed, Appeals, Appeals - leave, Awards -s145 see also Sidumo, B Waglay, Causes and defences, Conduct & capacity, Contractual breach, Costs, Courts, Evidence & onus, Judges, Labour Appeal Court, Labour Relations, LAC judges, Legal Practice, LRA 07: 112-184 Dispute, LRA 1995, Management, Mining, Operational reasons, Orders, Parties, Performance, Policies - all, Private enterprises, Review tests, Risks, Sectors, Sidumo - see also awards s 145, Statutes (LRL 2)-work, Statutory, Termination (LRL 8), Topics, Trust & confidence | 0 |

Gold Fields Mining SA (Pty) Ltd (Kloof Gold Mine) v CCMA Why did LAC allow an appeal and was it necessary for the Sidumo test to be restated in context of achieving standards rather than a focus on conduct? “[22] Based on...

Tag: length of service

Arbitrary wage discrimination: Rational wage differential?

Equal pay dispute: Comparators with longer service

Inherent job requirements: Service length arbitrary?

Seniority justifying differentials: Valid rational reason?

Newly appointed employees: Differentiation not discrimination

Sidumo test restated: No self-standing grounds