Chiara Carter
A Cape Town bus company employee is asking the Labour Court to find that he has been paid less than a white colleague because he is black – a case which, if successful, is likely to set a precedent for challenging discrimination in the workplace.
Michael Louw, a buyer for Golden Arrow Bus Services, joined City Tramways in mid-1984. The company has since been taken over by Golden Arrow. Louw argues that in 1990 a white man, Johannes Beneke, was employed as a buyer at a far higher salary – R2 300 a month as opposed to Louw’s salary of R1 500.
Beneke, who was appointed warehouse supervisor in April 1994, last year earned R5 390 as compared to Louw, who earned R3 335.
This week, the Cape Town Labour Court heard Louw’s argument that the difference in pay was based on race discrimination and was illegal. Golden Arrow is opposing the application and its lawyers have asked the court to dismiss the case.
Louw’s lawyers, Cheadle, Thompson and Haysom, argued that the difference in salaries was disproportionate to the difference in the two men’s jobs and although Beneke was now a supervisor, the work performed by the two men was of equal value. This was despite the company saying it decided salaries on the basis of criteria such as performance, potential, experience, education, attitude, skills, entry level and market forces.
The lawyers concluded that since there was no justification for the difference the only explanation was that Louw was the victim of discrimination on the grounds of race, colour or ethnic origin. They are alternatively arguing that the factors the company uses to evaluate wages had a disadvantageous impact on black employees.
Louw wants the court to rule that the company must pay him the difference in wages from November 1996 when the Labour Relations Act came into effect until now, as well as interest on this amount. He also wants his salary adjusted until an independent job evaluator examines the situation.
In its response Golden Arrow Bus Services has indicated that it intends arguing that Louw’s claims are untrue. The company said it did not classify its employees by race, colour or ethnic origin and it inherited Louw and Beneke as employees when it bought City Tramways in 1992.
The company said details dating back to before Beneke’s appointment as a supervisor were irrelevant and after that appointment the two jobs did not have the same value.
It also inherited the salaries paid by the men’s previous employers. These were adjusted annually on the basis of judgments made by management. These decisions were not based on discriminatory criteria, the company argues. The difference in wages could be explained by the different stature of the two jobs as well as factors such as performance, attitudes, skills, potential and experience.
Golden Arrow also denied that the criteria it used to decide wages disadvantaged black employees and were discriminatory.