Essence
Differentiated workload: The employee failed to discharge the burden of proof resting on her, in that the inference that she seeks to draw from the stated case and hence rely upon to ‘justify her claim is not the most readily apparent and acceptable inference from a number of possible inferences that might be drawn as to why a manager in the Western Cape is employed at a level 8 and a legal manager in another province is at a level 9. Differentiation of workload is as plausible a reason as is geographical location. Hence inferential reasoning alone cannot justify the respondent’s case’.
Decision
Minister of Correctional Services v Duma (CA10/2016) [2017] ZALAC 78 ; (2017) ILJ 2487 (23 June 2017). Appeal allowed and set aside the order of Rabkin-Naicker J in the labour court.
Judges
Davis JA (Tlaletsi AJP and Phatshoane AJA concurring)
Significance
Overview
Employee claiming unfair discrimination based on geographical area in the grading process of her position –
Held that:
Employee required to show that the employer’s conduct was unfair and amounted to a differentiation on geographical ground and that the practice was irrational and impaired her dignity
– employee required, at the very least, to show that the nature and volume of work which she performed in her position was similar to that of legal officers holding the same position in the four provinces who occupied a higher grade level and thus that the ground of differentiation was indeed geographical location
– no concrete evidence other than inferences sought to be drawn by employee to indicate that the basis for this differentiation was geography
– employee failing to discharge the burden of proof in that the inference that she seeks to draw from the stated case is not the most readily apparent and acceptable inference from a number of possible inferences. Appeal upheld with costs
– Labour Court’s judgment set aside.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks