Search

Section 6(4) of the Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998 (hereafter the EEA) seeks to provide an explicit basis for three types of equal pay claims. It is clear from section 6(4) of the EEA that there are various elements that an equal pay claimant must prove across the three equal pay causes of action. The only element considered in this article is "[a] difference in terms and conditions of employment". No definition is provided in the EEA, the Employment Equity Regulations (GN R595 in GG 37873 of 1 August 2014) or the Code of Good Practice on Equal Pay/Remuneration for Work of Equal Value (GN 448 in GG 38837 of 1 June 2015) as to what would fall within the ambit of "terms and conditions of employment" as referred to in section 6(4) of the EEA. It is important to know what would fall within the ambit of terms and conditions of employment as one of the elements an equal pay claimant must prove is that there is a difference in "terms and conditions of employment". This importance is furthermore evidenced by the fact that an employer can defeat an equal pay claim if it is able to show that the cause of the equal pay complaint does not fall within the ambit of terms and conditions of employment. This article seeks to answer the question as to what falls within the ambit of terms and conditions of employment for the purpose of equal pay claims as contemplated in section 6(4) of the EEA by having reference to domestic and international labour law.

The Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998 ("EEA") has been amended to include a specific provision dealing with equal pay claims in the form of section 6(4). Section 6(4) of the EEA prohibits unfair discrimination in terms and conditions of employment between employees performing the same or substantially the same work or work of equal value. The Minister of Labour has issued Regulations and a Code to assist with the implementation of the principle of equal pay. Both the Regulations and the Code set out the criteria for assessing work of equal value as well as the grounds of justification to a claim of equal pay for work of equal value (factors justifying differentiation in terms and conditions of employment). The EEA refers to two grounds of justification in respect of unfair discrimination claims, namely affirmative action and the inherent requirements of the job. There is support for the view that these grounds of justification are not suitable to equal pay claims. There is a contrary view that these grounds of justification can apply to equal pay claims. The Labour Courts have not had the opportunity to analyse these grounds of justification in the context of equal pay claims. It is thus necessary to analyse these grounds of justification in order to ascertain whether they provide justifications proper to equal pay claims. The purpose of this article is to analyse the grounds of justification of pay discrimination as contained in South African law, the Conventions and Materials of the International Labour Organisation and the equal pay laws of the United Kingdom. Lastly, an analysis will be undertaken to determine whether affirmative action and the inherent requirements of the job provide justifications proper to equal pay claims.

Equal pay is an area of employment law that is complex and not easily understood. This complexity is recognised by the International Labour Organisation (ILO), which notes that equal pay for work of equal value has proved to be difficult to understand, both with regard to what it entails and in its application. Amendments have been made to the Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998 (EEA) to include a specific provision to regulate equal pay claims in the form of section 6(4)-(5) of the EEA. The amendments were made in terms of the Employment Equity Amendment Act 47 of 2013, which came into effect on 1 August 2014 by presidential proclamation. Prior to section 6(4), the EEA did not contain a specific provision regulating equal pay claims. Claims could be brought in terms of section 6(1) of the EEA, which prohibits unfair discrimination on a number of grounds. The recent amendments to the EEA in the form of section 6(4)-(5) (including the Employment Equity Regulations and the Code of Good Practice on Equal Pay for Work of Equal Value) in respect of equal pay claims is a response to the ILO's criticism of South Africa's failure to include specific equal pay provisions in the EEA. Section 6(4) of the EEA provides for three causes of action in respect of equal pay. They are as follows: (a) equal pay for the same work; (b) equal pay for substantially the same work; and (c) equal pay for work of equal value. The first two causes of action are not difficult to understand as opposed to the third cause of action, which is complex. The ILO has recognised the complexity of the third cause of action, "equal pay for work of equal value". In Mangena v Fila South Africa 2009 12 BLLR 1224 (LC), the Labour Court remarked in the context of an equal pay for work of equal value claim that it does not have expertise in job grading and in the allocation of value to particular occupations. This article will deal with the third cause of action only, "equal pay for work of equal value". The purpose of this article is to critically analyse the law relating to equal pay for work of equal value in terms of the EEA (including the Employment Equity Regulations) and evaluate it against the equal pay laws of the ILO and the United Kingdom, which deal with equal pay for work of equal value. Lastly, this article seeks to ascertain whether the EEA (including the Employment Equity Regulations) provides an adequate legal framework for determining an equal pay for work of equal value claim.