Mining industry related carrying a 4.1 legal appointment operationally - I have been working in a more senior position unappointed for many months now. My previous role has not been filled and I also do that job as well. When I asked my employer for an acting allowance as I do a few persons' work, they refused. When I got my 2010 increase with a high performance rating, it was decreased as I was high in bracket related to my old more junior position. I actually wrote the role profile for the higher position I 'act' in as well. At some stage I was also told that the company will contradict its own charter and will only consider internal HDSA and external HDSA candidates before they will consider me for the position I am acting in as I am white - surely all the above matters are totally illegal? Wouter Joubert - highly qualified and very competent in role acting in.
Engaged at every level possible to resolve but people are not willing to assist as they see it as career limiting and that I, and them, might be victimised or intimidated - my union will now draft a letter to the CEO of the company to bring the detail and evidence forward.
Hi WouterWelcome to Just Answer!! Thank you for giving me the opportunity to assist you.
Is your appointment and contract with your previous position in writing?
Previous position contract in place when signed on in 2007. Legal appointment for more senior position also in place, I do my old and new job at the same time, as well as the work of other positions due to staff shortages. I have done if for a long time now and I do not get paid or appointed in the higher position either. It affects my annual increases as well. I think the first detail supplied explianed it clearly.
Section 186(2)(a) of the Labor Relations Act (LRA) provides that an "unfair labour practice" means any unfair act or omission that arises between an employer and an employee, involving unfair conduct by the employer relating to promotion. This section makes it clear that when an employer acts unfairly in relation to the promotion or non-promotion of an employee, such conduct or omission will amount to an unfair labor practice. Section 23 of the Constitution guarantees the right of every employee and employer to fair labor practices. The question of when is the employer's conduct relating to a promotion considered to be unfair has led to much legal debate and consideration by the Labor Court and forums established in terms of LRA. In Mashegoane & another v University of the North the Labor Court described promotion as "being elevated or appointed to a position that carries greater authority and status than the current position that the employee was in".The court extended the definition of promotion to include the non-appointment of employees to newly created posts, provided the appointment to such a new post would have elevated the employee's status.The general rule in employment in law is that the employer has the right to appoint or promote employees it considers best or most suitable for a particular position. CCMA arbitrators have shown a reluctance to interfere with the employer's discretion on whether or not to promote an employee. The courts have held that though it may not be easy to justify preferring one candidate over another, the employer is expected to at least state his reasons for promoting preference decision.In SA Municipal Workers Union obo Damon v Cape Metropolitan Council the court held that the process of selection inevitably results in a candidate being appointed and the unsuccessful candidates being disappointed, and that it was not unfair to do so. The question whether an employee has a legitimate expectation to be promoted was the central issue in Mogorosi v South African Reserve Bank. In this case the employee had requested promotion by the employer for a number of years, without success. Finally tired of this, he filed a grievance and thereafter referred the dispute to the CCMA, claiming that the employer was guilty of an unfair labor practice, because he had a reasonable expectation of promotion, which had unreasonably been frustrated by the employer. The commissioner found that before an employee can claim to have a legitimate expectation to be promoted, he must prove that he was given a categorical assurance by the employer that he would be promoted. In the circumstances if an employee wants to prove that he has a legitimate expectation to be promoted he must convince a decision maker that the employer among other things assured him that he would be promoted. In this context legitimate expectation means that an employee is only entitled to a hearing and does not guarantee that he will be the promoted.
My view is that you will have justified grounds to approach the Labour Court in this regard. You have a very strong case on the merits.
Admitted Attorney 17 years experience
DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided “as is”. To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the “Verified” symbol in the Expert’s profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).