- Da Silva says her salary was increased by R10,000 from February 2024, but the increase was never implemented.
- She says the unpaid increase and later salary adjustments left her R228,640 short.
- Her employer says the salary increase was replaced by an agreement to provide her with a Nissan Magnite.
Anthea Morlene Da Silva says a R10,000 salary increase that was supposed to take effect in February 2024 never reached her pocket. Instead, she says Ram Self Adhesive Labels continued paying her on her old salary, with the shortfall carrying through later salary increases.
By the time she left the company in October 2025, Da Silva calculated that she had been short-paid R228,640. The company disputes that calculation because it disputes that the salary increase was ever agreed.
How the shortfall grew
Da Silva worked for Ram Self Adhesive Labels from January 2022 until October 2025. She says the parties agreed to increase her salary by R10,000 from February 2024 and that the other terms of the amended employment agreement were implemented, but the R10,000 increase was not.
She therefore calculated a shortfall of R10,000 a month from February to June 2024. The problem continued when employees received a 10% salary increase in July 2024. Da Silva says her increase was calculated on her old salary of R40,000 instead of the R50,000 salary she should have been receiving, leaving her on R44,000 rather than R55,000.
When another 8% increase was granted in June 2025, she says it was again calculated on the lower R44,000 salary. This resulted in a salary of R47,470 instead of R59,400. Da Silva says the failure to correct her salary also affected her annual leave payout, three months’ notice pay, unemployment insurance, skills development levy and bonus provisions.
The employer says she got a car instead
Ram Self Adhesive Labels gives a different account of what happened. The company says Da Silva submitted a draft employment contract containing a R10,000 salary increase, but the document was never signed.
According to the employer, Da Silva was instructed to print two copies and leave a copy for the company to consider. The company says discussions followed and the parties reached another agreement: instead of the R10,000 salary increase, it would purchase a Nissan Magnite for Da Silva’s use. The employer therefore denies that a salary increase was ever agreed.
The Nissan Magnite became another dispute
The disagreement later extended to what Da Silva was entitled to do with the vehicle. After she referred the matter to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration, the employer said Da Silva complained that she had been deprived of the vehicle during her three-month notice period.
The company said she had understood that the Nissan Magnite would become her personal property. Its position was that the vehicle remained the company’s property and had only been provided for her use.
The employer also questioned why Da Silva had waited 17 months to raise the alleged salary shortfall. It pointed out that she had not raised the issue when her salary was increased in July 2024 or when the further increase was implemented in June 2025.
The employment documents became important
Da Silva also relied on correspondence from the company’s attorneys dated 12 November 2025. The letter referred to a contract of employment and a particular clause, which Da Silva relied on as support for her contention that an amended agreement had been concluded.
The Labour Court noted, however, that the clause number in the letter did not correspond with the confidentiality provision being discussed. Another clause appeared to mirror the provision referred to in the correspondence.
The documents therefore did not resolve the disagreement over what the parties had actually agreed.
Da Silva takes the fight to court
Da Silva approached the Labour Court in Cape Town seeking an order declaring Ram Self Adhesive Labels in breach of her employment contract. She sought payment of the R228,640 in alleged outstanding remuneration, as well as accrued annual leave pay and notice pay.
The matter was heard by Acting Judge C May on 9 September 2026. The judge found that the parties had presented materially different versions of the agreement and that the dispute could not be properly resolved from the written papers.
The matter was referred to oral evidence, with the parties directed to attend a pre-trial conference before it proceeds to trial. Each party was ordered to pay its own costs.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
