The Labour Court of South Africa has ruled against former Pandora employee Mmatlawa Tebogeng Nadine Phasha in her claim for an unpaid bonus commission totalling R44,000.
The verdict, delivered by Judge RG Lagrange on 7 April 2025, hinged on critical aspects of contract law, employee agreements, and the interpretation of performance targets. Phasha's claim stems from her tenure at the V&A Waterfront store in Cape Town, where she contended, she was entitled to a bonus commission for November 2021 after the store achieved an impressive 525,5% of its sales target. Yet, she only received R3,000, leaving her to demand the outstanding R41,000 from Pandora Jewellery South Africa (Pty) Ltd. At the heart of the dispute was an initial agreement that stipulated the commission structure based on the percentage achievement of sales budgets.
However, Pandora argued that a new performance incentive scheme, acknowledged by Phasha in July 2021, had superseded this commission structure, thereby negating her claim. In a pre-trial ruling, the court dismissed Pandora's in limine point, affirming that the commission structure had not changed and that Phasha retained her entitlement to the bonus as laid out prior to the agreement of the new incentive scheme.
Disputed sales target the crux of the legal battle
Despite this initial win for Phasha, the trial's outcome depended heavily on whether she could prove her entitlement based on the sale target calculations. Pandora attempted to undermine the validity of Phasha's calculations, contending that the R92,000 target she initially operated under was based on an evident mistake. They asserted that the sales target should, in fact, have been R550,000. Phasha, however, argued that the overly low target she was provided raised concerns from the start, especially in light of targets at other stores that were considerably higher. Nevertheless, the court sided with Pandora, concluding that Phasha could not substantiate her claim to the bonus commission.
The court noted that while Phasha had an initial entitlement to a bonus based on prior agreements, her inability to produce the original contract and the substantial changes in the performance target undermined her case significantly. The judgment reiterated that her claim failed on the balance of probabilities, primarily due to questionable evidentiary support and the inconsistency surrounding the sales target calculations.
Furthermore, in a potential twist for observers of employment law, the court also addressed the costs incurred during the trial. Despite Pandora making a "with prejudice" settlement offer that Phasha rejected, the court decided she must bear the costs for the proceedings, characterising her refusal of the offer as unreasonable given the circumstances of the case.
#Conviction
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
