- Zibuyile Manzi claimed she earned R478,404 while a white male colleague earned R852,779 for similar work.
- The Labour Court denied her request to expand the back pay claim to cover periods before 2019.
- The court ruled that Manzi’s discrimination case can continue, but only for claims from 2019 onward.
A Durban Labour Court has examined Zibuyile Manzi’s request to change her discrimination claim against Nedbank Group Limited. This involves allegations of race and gender-based pay differences within the bank’s forensic investigation division.
Manzi filed her claim under Sections 6(1) and 6(4) of the Employment Equity Act. She argued that Nedbank paid her a much lower salary compared to her white male colleagues doing similar work.
The judgment noted that Manzi earned R478,404 per year while one of her comparators, Adriaan van Rooyen, earned R852,779 annually. Alternatively, she requested a salary aligned with the D2 median pay grade for forensic investigator, set at R701,350 per year.
The judgment stated that Manzi sought relief with the request for her salary to be adjusted to match that of her white male colleagues at R852,779 annually. The judgment also mentioned that Manzi wanted compensation and back pay based on the salary difference.
Amendment application
The issue before Judge K Allen-Yaman was Manzi’s request to amend her Statement of Claim. During the trial proceedings in April 2024, it became clear that Manzi’s original claim did not fully align with her understanding of its extent. Her legal representative indicated that changes might be needed.
The court noted that Manzi’s original Statement of Claim, dated 5 May 2020, included a request for back pay “from when she started as a forensic investigator to the present.”
Nedbank contested this claim, arguing that it was unclear and problematic because the pleadings did not detail the basis for seeking pay from the start of her employment in 2011.
After these objections, Manzi revised her claim and limited the back pay request to 2019. In the latest amendment application, she sought to change the pleadings again to request back pay “from when she started as a forensic investigator II to now.”
Court ruling
Judge Allen-Yaman determined that by limiting her claim to 2019, Manzi had effectively abandoned any back pay request before that year.
The judge wrote, “It is hard to see the effect of her First Amendment as anything other than the clear abandonment of that part of her claim for back pay before 2019.”
The court also found that the proposed amendment would create a new cause of action that lacked the necessary supporting allegations for the claim.
Judge Allen-Yaman stated, “No interpretation of her current Statement of Claim supports any claim, whether for discrimination or otherwise, before 2019.”
The judgment also included Nedbank’s argument that records are kept for seven years and that witnesses related to salary decisions from earlier years were no longer available or reliable.
Judge Allen-Yaman accepted that the issues raised by Nedbank could not be resolved by a costs order, a delay, or further requests for details. The court, therefore, denied Manzi the ability to amend her claim to seek back pay for periods before 2019.
However, the court permitted several other amendments for wording changes and clarifications in the Statement of Claim. This means Manzi’s main discrimination case against Nedbank can continue, but only regarding pay differences from 2019 onward.
Each party was ordered to cover its own legal costs.
Get your news on the go. Clickhere to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
