The Department of Correctional Services faced scrutiny over its employment equity decision after the labour court ruled in favour of a correctional services official.
Image: File
Employment equity targets at the Department of Correctional Services came under the spotlight in the labour court as an employee ranked the highest for a promotion lost out as management said she did not meet their equity targets.
The employee, only noted as A Benjamin in the judgment of the Cape Town Labour Court, turned to court in claiming that the department had committed an unfair labour practice by not appointing her.
She stated that this is in light of the fact that the selection panel had strongly recommended her for the post of provisioning administration officer in the Drakenstein management area. The deputy regional commissioner, however, decided against her promotion, stating that the appointment would not be “in line” with the department's “EE targets”.
This came after Correctional Services maintained that its employment equity plan focussed on national targets, which indicated that coloured females were over-represented. Benjamin, on the other hand, argued the regional employment equity targets, showed that coloured women were actually underrepresented in the Western Cape at this level.
Following the interviews of several candidates, the panel strongly recommended Benjamin for the position and noted that it is both in line with the regional equity targets as well as her skills. The deputy regional commissioner, however, determined that Benjamin must not be appointed to the post due to the employment equity policy of the department.
Benjamin testified that she had from time to time performed the functions of the post she had applied for and pointed out that she was best suited for the job.
According to the department, its employment equity framework included both regional and national targets. It added that the post in question in any event no longer exists within the Goodwood Correctional Centre.
An arbitrator meanwhile dismissed Benjamin’s dispute as he accepted the department’s explanation that it had to comply with its employment equality plan. The labour court said the arbitrator was wrong in rejecting Benjamin’s claim and accepting the department’s defence that its employment equity policy focussed on national targets and that coloured females were over-represented in the applicable occupational level.
Judge Benita Whitcher said Benjamin established that she met all the requirements of the post and that the panel had strongly recommended her as being the best candidate. She added that the department had agreed that its employment equity policy provides for regional targets. The evidence indicated that the delegated authority considered only numerical targets, and at that, questionable targets, the judge said.
“In the context of the facts, common sense and fairness had dictated that numerical targets were a neutral factor, and therefore the selection fell to be determined on merit. A reasonable arbitrator would have found that the employer’s decision not to promote Benjamin to the post was irrational, capricious and unfair,” the judge said.
She concluded that Benjamin is entitled to compensation equivalent to 12 months' remuneration, calculated at her rate of remuneration on the date the unfair labour practice arose.