The appellants were telephone operators employed by the respondent. Prior to a 1992 job evaluation exercise, the respondent had three categories of telephone operators: Gateway International Exchange operators (manning the International Exchange in Gweru), Grade One operators (manning major urban exchanges), and Grade Two operators (manning rural exchanges). The Gateway operators were graded higher than the other two categories, and Grade One operators were graded higher than Grade Two operators, with differences in grading and salary based on the racial policy of the previous regime, location of exchanges, and volume and nature of calls processed. When the job evaluation was implemented in June 1992, all operators were graded into one grade, BL2. However, the Grade One and Gateway operators were found to be paid above the BL2 salary scale. The respondent had undertaken not to reduce the salaries of staff found to be paid above the salary scale of their jobs but to pay them at their existing levels. Consequently, the salaries of former Gateway and Grade One operators were pegged at their existing salaries, while the appellants (former Grade Two operators) were paid at the BL2 scale. The appellants sought a declaration that payment of different salaries for the same work was discriminatory and unlawful.
The appeal was dismissed with costs.
The binding legal principles established are: (1) An employer is not acting unlawfully or irrationally by maintaining historical salary differentials inherited from a previous administration while taking steps to phase them out through natural attrition, provided employees are being paid correctly according to current job evaluations. (2) There is no legitimate expectation on the part of employees to be paid more than their correct entitlement simply because other employees may be receiving greater unjustified benefits due to historical anomalies. (3) An employer with statutory duties to prudently manage public funds would act irresponsibly by aggravating a financial situation by extending overpayment to additional employees rather than phasing out the anomaly. (4) A breach of constitutional equality provisions only arises where inequality results from an act of commission or omission on prohibited grounds set out in the relevant constitutional provision. (5) Constitutional equality provisions do not prevent the continuation of unequal treatment where that continuation results from a decision taken on sound financial grounds not to aggravate an inherited anomaly, particularly where public funds are involved and constitutional exceptions apply.
The Court observed that the anomalous salary situation was a product of the racial policy of the previous regime, along with other factors such as location of exchanges and volume of calls. The Court noted approvingly that as anomalously paid employees retire, resign or move to other posts, there are no vacancies for others on those privileged terms and all new telephone operators come in at the bottom of the BL2 grade salary scale, indicating that the respondent was pursuing a policy of gradual correction through natural attrition. The Court also made observations about the respondent's commendable approach in undertaking not to reduce anyone's salary during the job evaluation exercise, showing consideration for employee welfare while implementing necessary reforms.
This case is significant in Zimbabwean labour and constitutional law as it establishes that employers are not required to perpetuate historical salary anomalies by equalizing salaries upward where such anomalies were inherited from previous administrations. The case affirms that the principle of equal pay for equal work does not create a legitimate expectation to be overpaid simply because other employees are receiving unjustified benefits. It also clarifies that employers with statutory duties to prudently manage public funds are entitled to phase out salary anomalies through attrition rather than aggravating them by increasing all salaries to the highest anomalous level. The case provides important guidance on the application of constitutional equality provisions in the employment context, particularly where public funds are involved, and recognizes the protection afforded by constitutional exceptions for matters concerning the appropriation of public revenues.