The first respondent, Eskom, commenced a restructuring exercise in 2011 aimed at transformation and implementation of a new organisational structure. In March 2014, Eskom adopted a migration policy to guide employee migration from the old to the new organisational structure. The five employees (Messrs Zatu, Coetzee, Lambert, Smit and Wolstenholme) worked in the Materials Management Department at Eskom's Koeberg nuclear power station. Prior to restructuring, Zatu was designated as Supervisor Tech Technical Serv T10, while the other four were Senior Storeman Issuing T06. However, evidence showed these designations did not reflect the actual work performed - Zatu performed Senior Warehouse Supervisor T12 duties, and the other four performed Warehouse Supervisor T10 duties. During the restructuring, job profiles for Senior Warehouse Supervisor T12 and Warehouse Supervisor T10 were approved and graded by the Job Evaluation Committee in July-August 2014. Initially, in December 2014, Zatu received a letter upgrading him to T12, and a 2015 organogram showed all five employees placed in the higher graded positions. However, in May 2015, the employees received letters stating their positions were "unaffected" by transformation and remained at their old grades (T10 for Zatu, T06 for the others). The employees appealed to the Employee Care Group (ECG) established under the migration policy. In July 2015, the ECG upheld their appeals, recommending their designations be rectified and they be upgraded. Management at Koeberg approved the changes, but the Remuneration and Benefits Manager at national level refused to sign off, and the upgrades were not implemented. By contrast, three other similarly situated employees (Van Wyk, Scullard and Louw) who appealed to the ECG in August 2015 on similar grounds were successfully upgraded to T10. The employees referred an unfair labour practice dispute to the CCMA.
The appeal was upheld. The order of the Labour Court was set aside and substituted with an order dismissing the application for review. The cross-appeal was dismissed. Eskom was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal and cross-appeal. The effect was to reinstate the CCMA commissioner's award ordering Eskom to upgrade the employees to T12 and T10 positions with effect from 1 September 2014 and to pay them the salary differences (back pay).
The binding legal principles established are: (1) A dispute concerning the incorrect grading of a position constitutes an unfair labour practice relating to the provision of "benefits" under section 186(2)(a) of the LRA, not a promotion dispute, because benefits (including remuneration, status, and eligibility for promotion) are normally determined by grade. (2) Re-grading does not promote an employee into a new position but merely recognizes the correct value to be attached to work the employee is already performing; it does not change job contents, whereas promotion gives an employee different or revised tasks. (3) An employer commits an unfair labour practice when it fails to grade employees according to the work they actually perform, particularly where job profiles accurately reflecting that work have been developed and graded by the appropriate job evaluation structures. (4) Inconsistent treatment of similarly situated employees during organizational restructuring, where some employees receive upgrades following the same process while others do not, constitutes unfair conduct. (5) Internal issues of authorization or procedural requirements do not justify substantively unfair treatment of employees in relation to grading and benefits. (6) The CCMA has jurisdiction to determine disputes about unfair grading as unfair labour practices relating to benefits under section 186(2)(a) of the LRA.
The Court made several non-binding observations: (1) The Court noted that although the 2015 organogram may not have given rise to contractual rights or legitimate expectations, it could be used as evidence of management's understanding and acceptance of the actual work performed by employees. (2) The Court suggested, without deciding, that the employees' situation might have been covered by paragraphs 3.2.5.8 and 3.3.1 of the migration policy dealing with reasonable accommodation of employees whose positions no longer exist, or paragraph 3.2.5.9 dealing with placement in new positions, but held it was unnecessary to determine the appeal on whether the migration policy was correctly followed. (3) The Court observed that it appeared prima facie that the prescriptions of the migration policy were not correctly followed, which in itself pointed to unfairness, though this was not the basis of the decision. (4) The Court noted the case was not determined on the basis of legitimate expectation or contractual rights arising from representations, but purely on the fairness of the employer's conduct. (5) The Court commented that Eskom's focus on issues of authority failed to address the substantive fairness of not properly rewarding employees for their work.
This case is significant in South African labour law for establishing important principles regarding job grading disputes and unfair labour practices. It clarifies that a dispute about incorrect job grading falls within the category of unfair labour practice relating to "benefits" under section 186(2)(a) of the LRA, rather than promotion. The judgment distinguishes between re-grading (which recognizes the correct value of work already performed) and promotion (which assigns different or new tasks). The case emphasizes that employers must ensure employees are graded according to the work they actually perform, not merely their formal designations. It also establishes that inconsistent treatment of similarly situated employees during organizational restructuring can constitute unfairness. The judgment affirms that the CCMA has jurisdiction over grading disputes as unfair labour practices relating to benefits. It reinforces that employers implementing migration or transformation policies must act fairly and consistently, and cannot avoid obligations based on internal procedural or authorization issues when the substantive unfairness is established. The case is important for its recognition that failure to properly compensate employees for work actually performed, regardless of formal job titles, constitutes an unfair labour practice.