The Anatomy of Disputes about Equal Pay for Equal Work
![handle is hein.journals/safrmerlj14 and id is 353 raw text is: The Anatomy of Disputes about
Equal Pay for Equal Work
Adolph A Landman*
Labour Court
1 Introduction
It is generally accepted as axiomatic that people doing equal work
should receive equal pay. But our experience shows that there are often
discrepancies between the remuneration paid as between men and
woman, along racial lines, and for other reasons such as union
membership. Remedies to address these discrepancies have been in
place from at least 1981 when the concept 'unfair labour practice' came
into being. 1 But until recently hardly any disputes were declared over pay
discrepancies. This can be explained partly by the inherent disinclination
of individuals to challenge their employers, and mainly because trade
unions, especially black trade unions, were pursuing other goals -
democracy was their main priority. Gender equality, although a focal
point at one time in union activities, had taken a back seat by the time
that the unfair labour practice jurisdiction, which could provide relief,
came into being.
At least two methods exist to remedy discrimination manifesting in
unequal wages. The first is case-by-case litigation. This may be done in
terms of the Employment Equity Act2 and, for a limited number of
employees, the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair
Discrimination Act. 3 The second method may be described as a pro-
active or preventative approach, in that employers are required to
implement pay equity in their organizations within a specified time,
coupled with a monitoring, inspection, and reporting system. This
approach has been implemented, for example, in a number of Canadian
provinces,4 while the affirmative action provisions in chapter III of the
EEA also illustrate such an approach.5
Against this background I will explore the anatomy of equal pay
disputes within the context of the first approach - that of litigation -
and raise the pertinent questions, supply some answers, and point to the
* BA LLB H Dip Tax (Wits) LLM (Unisa). Judge of the Labour Court.
See SA Chemical Workers Union & others v Sentrachem Ltd (1988) 9 ILJ 410 (IC).
2 Act 55 of 1998 ('EEA').
3 Act 4 of 2000 ('PEPUDA'). For a discussion of equal pay for equal work in terms of this Act,
see Cathi Albertyn, Beth Goldblatt & Chris Roederer (eds) Introduction to the Promotion of
Equality and Unfair Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000 (2001) 105.
4 See IM Christie et al Employment Law in Canada 2 ed (1993) 286.
' Section 27 of the EEA not only requires designated employers to submit prescribed
statements on the remuneration and benefits received in each occupational category and level of
the workforce, but also requires them 'progressively [to] reduce' disproportionate income
differentials through appropriate measures.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/safrmerlj14&div=27&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
The Anatomy of Disputes about Equal Pay for Equal Work
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most