- The case centred on whether ‘exploitation’ qualifies as a discrimination ground.
- The Court found that it does not, as it is not linked to personal attributes.
- The claim failed for this reason and was dismissed at the close of the applicant’s case.
The Labour Court has dismissed Clint Links’ unfair discrimination claim against the South African Police Service, finding that the ground he relied on, “exploitation,” is not recognised by law.
Links approached the court under Section 6 of the Employment Equity Act, arguing that he was paid less than colleagues who performed the same or substantially similar work. He compared himself to other Legal Administrative Officers, some of whom held higher salary levels despite, in his view, doing the same job. Links argued that this pay gap constituted unfair discrimination and sought to recover the remuneration difference from 2021 onwards.
What qualifies as discrimination?
However, the case did not turn on the details of the pay disparity or the comparators. Judge T Gandidze focused on a more fundamental question of whether the ground advanced by Links, “exploitation,” qualifies as an arbitrary ground of discrimination under Section 6.
Judge Gandidze stressed that a discrimination claim cannot proceed without a recognised ground. The court confirmed that Section 6 requires an applicant to rely on either a listed ground or an unlisted ground that is comparable to those listed.
Judge Gandidze noted that an applicant alleging discrimination must rely either on a listed ground or an arbitrary ground.
The court explained that an arbitrary ground is not just any complaint about unfair treatment. It must relate to attributes or characteristics of a person that could impair dignity in a way comparable to the listed grounds. Judge Gandidze emphasised that the ground must relate to the attributes or characteristics of a person.
Links argued that “exploitation” is an arbitrary ground for discrimination. He framed this as unfair treatment based on the employer’s alleged conduct.
The court found that this argument does not identify a ground in the legal sense required by section 6. Instead, it describes how the employee perceives the employer’s actions.
Judge Gandidze explained that exploitation describes the respondent’s conduct and is not a ground analogous to those listed in the law.
The court held that a valid ground must relate to who the employee is, not how the employer is said to have acted. Without a link to a personal attribute or characteristic, the claim cannot meet the required standard for discrimination.
Applying the established test for arbitrary grounds, the court found that “exploitation” does not qualify because it is not based on any inherent or associated characteristic of the applicant. It does not identify a class of people, nor does it involve the dignity-based harm contemplated in discrimination law.
The court acknowledged that there may be attempts to frame such concepts as attributes, but ultimately rejected this approach. The term remains a description of conduct, not a recognised ground.
Judge Gandidze concluded that without an arbitrary ground related to the attributes or characteristics of a person, the applicant’s case could not proceed.
Limits of discrimination law confirmed
The judgment reinforces that discrimination law is not a general solution for workplace unfairness. The court confirmed that Section 6 of the Employment Equity Act is not a catch-all for grievances and must be applied within defined limits.
The court reaffirmed that the only categories of grounds are listed grounds and unlisted grounds that are similar to those listed. Any attempt to introduce broader or undefined categories falls outside the framework of the Act.
In doing so, the court followed established authority that requires a narrow and structured approach to arbitrary grounds and rejected broader interpretations that would weaken this requirement.
Because Links failed to identify a recognised ground for discrimination, the court found that his claim could not proceed, regardless of the evidence of pay disparity.
Judge Gandidze held that this flaw was fatal and could not be fixed by evidence. Without a valid ground, there was no legal basis for the claim from the beginning.
The court granted absolution from the instance, bringing the matter to an end at the close of the applicant’s case, without requiring the South African Police Service to present its defence.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
