Last week SAA cabin crew downed tools, demanding, among other things, an increase in the daily meal allowance from $131 a day to $170.
With this as background; what should employees and employers know about allowances, and disputes surrounding them?
Molatudi discussed the following five points:
Allowances (i.e. extra payments, either cash or in kind) can be a discretionary (e.g. an incentive bonus, or what is commonly referred to as a 13th cheque) or a contractual entitlement (e.g. a car or transport allowance). To have a claim; allowances must be provided for in a contract, otherwise they will then form part of collective bargaining in the form of demands.
Other examples of allowances are discretionary payments (e.g. a tool allowance; a relocation allowance; a meal allowance; a share incentive or discretionary profit-sharing scheme; an entertainment allowance; an education or schooling allowance).
In the event of a dispute regarding allowances; employees have a choice to refer an unfair labour practice dispute to the CCMA for arbitration; or opt to go on a protected strike – and this will depend on how they describe the nature of the dispute.
The challenging part (in the context of the current SAA strike) is how the dispute is described. Our courts have held that disputes over provision of benefits (comprising allowances) fall into two categories: 1) Where the dispute is not based on an allegation that the granting or removal of that benefit is unfair, strike action is the remedy. 2) Where the dispute concerns the fairness or otherwise of the employer’s conduct, such dispute may be refereed to arbitration.
- The distinguishing factor is the employer's conduct versus the nature of the employees' demand(s). In the SAA case, the employees are not complaining about the provision of the meal allowance, but they are deadlocked with SAA for refusing to increase it to a particular amount (their demand). In respect of the former – ordinarily, employees would complain that the employer's exercise of discretion in providing the benefit is unfair, whereas in respect of the latter – the complaint is that the employer is refusing to increase it thus making it a dispute of mutual interest and consequently one over which the employees may strike. It should be noted that an employee may not strike alone over a claim for an increase of a particular allowance – it has to be a group of employees acting in concert.
For more detail; listen to the interview in the audio below.
Enter your email address in the form below to receive a newsletter containing the most-read articles of the week from Bruce Whitfield’s The Money Show every Friday morning in your inbox.
Recommendedby NEWSROOM AI
The Money Show’s Bruce Whitfield interviews Celeste Fauconnier, co-author of RMB’s 2019 “Where to Invest in Africa” report.
The Money Show's Bruce Whitfield interviews Jeremy Berke (Business Insider) and Unathi Henama (Tshwane University of Technology).
Recession, soaring fuel costs and surplus capacity - yet profits keep coming! Bruce Whitfield interviews Comair CEO Erik Venter.
Laat die dansvloer brand! The Money Show’s Bruce Whitfield interviews Afrikaans musician Kurt Darren.
Life is really hard for young adults, but they’re more than coping. Old Mutual research suggests older adults can learn from them.
In the final episode of Solutionist Thinking with RMB, Bruce Whitfield speaks with the serial entrepreneur, Andrew Levy.
Myrtle Clark and Julian Stobbs, dubbed the dagga couple, have been trying for years to have dagga legalised.
Associate Professor of Law at Wits University James Grant says the ConCourt did not define what private use was.
Cape Town's dam levels have hit the 70% mark but experts say Capetonians still have to be cautious in their water consumption.
Dagga Party's Gareth Prince on Constitutional Court handing down today's judgment on whether or not to decriminalise cannabis use.
Khabazela shares some of the most popular tweets, posts, and videos on 'What's gone viral'.
Ralph Mathekga says the experience on the ground shows that there is a problem when it comes to framing affirmative action.
Spokesperson for Education department says the fact that this learner is still in Grade 10 at 17 may indicate there is a problem.