Blog

The principle of equal pay for equal work, or work of equal value, remains a fundamental component of South African employment law. Section 6(4) of the Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998 (EEA) prohibits unfair discrimination where employees performing the same, substantially the same, or work of equal value are remunerated differently on a listed or arbitrary ground.

However, not every salary disparity constitutes unfair discrimination. This distinction was recently reaffirmed by the Labour Appeal Court (LAC) in Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa v Hoyo (CA04/2023) [2024] ZALAC 57; [2025] 2 BLLR 160 (LAC); (2025) 46 ILJ 1123 (LAC).

The judgment provides important guidance on the requirements that an employee must satisfy to succeed in an equal pay claim and clarifies the evidentiary burden applicable in alleged pay discrimination disputes.

The Facts

 Mr Pholile Hoyo was employed by the Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (PRASA) as a Production Manager. He alleged that two of his subordinates, who happened to both be white employees, earned higher salaries than he did despite allegedly occupying positions with less responsibility. He contended that the salary disparity amounted to unfair discrimination based on race and a breach of the equal pay provisions of the EEA.

The Labour Court (LC) accepted Mr Hoyo’s claim and found that PRASA had unfairly discriminated against him. PRASA was ordered to compensate him for the non-patrimonial damages arising from the discrimination. Dissatisfied with the outcome, PRASA appealed to the Labour Appeal Court (LAC).

The LAC’s Decision

The LAC overturned the LC’s judgment and dismissed Mr Hoyo’s claim, holding that Mr Hoyo had failed to establish the essential elements of an equal pay discrimination claim.

Central to any equal pay claim is the identification of a suitable comparator. The employee must demonstrate that another employee employed by the same employer performs the same work, substantially the same work, or work of equal value, yet receives greater remuneration. In PRASA v Hoyo, the LAC reaffirmed that a mere salary disparity is insufficient to establish unfair discrimination. A claimant must prove, through objective evidence, that the comparator’s work is comparable and that the differentiation in remuneration is attributable to a prohibited ground of discrimination or to an arbitrary ground contemplated by Section 6 of the EEA.

The Court found that Mr Hoyo’s comparators were his subordinates and that there was no objective evidence establishing that their work was the same or of equal value to his own. In fact, the evidence suggested that he occupied a more senior position than they did.

The Court further held that the existence of different salaries does not automatically establish discrimination. The employee must also show that the differentiation is linked to a prohibited ground, such as race, or another arbitrary ground contemplated by Section 6 of the EEA. Mr Hoyo failed to establish a sufficient evidentiary basis linking the salary differential to race discrimination. Consequently, the LAC concluded that the LC had erred and set aside its decision.

Impact on Equal Pay Jurisprudence

The judgment is significant for several reasons. Firstly, it reinforces that equal pay claims are fundamentally discrimination claims and not merely remuneration disputes. Employees cannot succeed simply by proving that colleagues earn more than they do. They must demonstrate both unequal remuneration and an unlawful discriminatory basis for that inequality.

The judgment also highlights the importance of identifying proper comparators, which requires an objective assessment of the respective positions and duties rather than a subjective perception of unfairness.

The Court’s decision confirms the relevance of Regulations 5 and 6 of the Employment Equity Regulations, which prescribe factors such as responsibility, skills, qualifications, effort, and working conditions when determining whether work is of equal value. Employers and employees alike must therefore approach equal pay disputes through a structured assessment rather than a simple comparison of salary figures.

The decision in PRASA v Hoyo is consistent with earlier authorities such as Mangena and Others v Fila South Africa (Pty) Ltd and Others [2009] ZALC 108; (2009) 30 ILJ 2591 (LC) and Pioneer Foods (Pty) Ltd v Workers Against Regression (WAR) and Others (C687/15) [2017] ZALCCT 24; (2018) 39 ILJ 2873 (LC), which emphasise that wage differentiation is not inherently discriminatory. These cases recognise that differences in remuneration may be justified by objective factors including experience, qualifications, skills, seniority, scarcity of expertise, performance, and market-related considerations. What the EEA prohibits is not differentiation per se, but differentiation founded upon a prohibited or arbitrary ground that results in unfair discrimination.

Finally, the judgment provides valuable protection for employers confronted with equal pay disputes based solely on salary disparities. It confirms that employers may justify wage differentials where objective and non-discriminatory reasons exist and where the employee cannot establish the required link to a prohibited ground of discrimination.

Principles Governing Equal Pay Claims

 The principles applicable to equal pay disputes under Section 6(4) of the EEA can be summarised as follows:

• The employee must establish that a difference in remuneration or terms and conditions of employment exists.
• The employee must identify a valid comparator employed by the same employer.
• The comparator must perform the same work, substantially the same work, or work of equal value.
• The differentiation must be based on a listed ground of discrimination or another arbitrary ground.
• The employee must establish a causal connection between the salary differential and the prohibited or arbitrary ground relied upon.
• Once discrimination is established, the employer bears the burden of proving that the differentiation is rational, fair, or otherwise justifiable in terms of the EEA.

These requirements ensure that the EEA addresses genuine discrimination while recognising that not all wage disparities are unlawful.

What PRASA v Hoyo Means for Employers

The LAC’s decision in this case is an important development in South African equal pay jurisprudence. It confirms that unequal remuneration alone does not constitute unfair discrimination and that employees must establish both work of equal value and a prohibited or arbitrary discriminatory ground before relief can be granted.

The judgment provides welcome clarity on the evidentiary requirements applicable to equal pay disputes and reinforces the distinction between legitimate remuneration differentiation and unlawful discrimination. Read together with decisions such as Mangena and Pioneer Foods, the judgment confirms that employers remain entitled to differentiate remuneration on objective and legitimate grounds, provided that such differentiation is not tainted by discrimination.

For employers, employees, and labour law practitioners alike, PRASA v Hoyo will likely serve as a leading authority on the interpretation and application of Section 6(4) of the EEA for years to come. It is a timely reminder that the EEA is aimed at eradicating discriminatory pay practices, not eliminating all remuneration differences in the workplace. The decision therefore strikes an important balance between the constitutional imperative of equality and the legitimate operational realities that often justify differential remuneration.

Written by Charl Scholtz