KZN nurses' salary upgrade claim dismissed by Labour Court.
Image: Pexels
THE Labour Court in Durban has dismissed a salary upgrade application from HOSPERSA on behalf of two nurses, Priya Naidoo and Sifiso Mthethwa.
The application was brought by the health sector union Health and Other Service Personnel Trade Union of South Africa (HOSPERSA) on behalf of two employees, Priya Naidoo and Sifiso Mthethwa.
Both employees were previously employed at Saint Mary’s Hospital, a private facility that was later converted into a public hospital under the management of the KZN department of health in October 2017.
Following the transition, the two workers signed employment contracts with the provincial health department shortly before the transfer took effect. Naidoo was appointed as Assistant Director: Human Resources and Mthethwa was appointed as Assistant Director: Finance.
Both were placed on salary level 9, earning R404,121 per year, excluding allowances and benefits.
The dispute arose after the employees claimed that their salaries should have been placed on salary level 10, a higher pay grade within the public service.
Their grievance was escalated in March 2019 to the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA).
Later that year, a letter from Professor Richard Levin, then a senior official in the DPSA, advised that affected employees transferred from the private hospital should be placed on the first notch of salary level 10, effective from October 2017, with further adjustments reflecting cost-of-living increases for 2018 and 2019.
Based on this communication, the applicants argued that the health department had failed to implement the recommended adjustment and sought a court order directing the department to upgrade their salaries to salary level 10, calculate back pay from October 2017, and pay all outstanding amounts.
The KZN department of health opposed the application, arguing that no breach of contract had occurred.
The department maintained that both employees were being paid exactly as stipulated in their signed employment contracts, which clearly set their remuneration at salary level 9.
It also argued that the DPSA letter relied upon by the applicants was not addressed to the department, but to the Public Servants Association, another union. The department said it only became aware of the letter when the court application was filed in February 2024.
Presiding over the matter, acting Judge G C Phakedi noted that the contracts signed by both employees expressly stated that their salaries would be based on salary level 9, with the specified annual remuneration.
Because of this, the court concluded that the employees could not rely on an external letter from the DPSA to claim a contractual entitlement that was not included in their signed agreements.
Judge Phakedi stated that the applicants were already being remunerated in accordance with their contracts, meaning that no breach had been established.
The court also rejected the request for declaratory relief, finding that the applicants had not established a legal basis for the order they sought.
As a result, the application was dismissed, and the applicants were ordered to pay the legal costs incurred by the department.