THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF SWAZILAND
AT MBABANE CASE NO. 6/2001
the matter between:
M. DLAMINI APPLICANT
PUBLIC SERVICE PENSIONS
APPLICANT: MR. J. MAVUSO
RESPONDENT: MR. N.J. HLOPHE
applicant seeks two prayers before court:
No. 1 is proper grading or notching of the position of administration
manager by equating with that of a similar organisation the Swaziland
National Provident Fund (S.N.P.F.).
second prayer is that the applicant wants to receive the difference
between what he is earning and what he could have earned had his
salary been equated with that of the administration manager of the
applicant gave evidence under oath. It is common cause that the
applicant is employed by the fund as administration manager. As
manager the applicant falls within the members of the executive of
is common cause further that in 1998 there was a study to upgrade the
salary structure of the fund. Applicant was tasked with conducting a
research on salaries paid by other public corporations with the view
of having the respondent's salaries made comparable and/or
to the applicant upon completion of the study and presentation of the
grades and salary structures of the various financial organizations
the posts and salary structure of the Swaziland National provident
Fund (SNPF) was, on the 14th April 1998 adopted and implemented as is
by. the respondent's board of trustees.
states that the salary structure which was wholly adopted from the
SNPF stood as reflected in Annexure 'B' of the applicant's
application. Prior to the adoption of the structure, respondent's own
structure stood as reflected in Annex 'C'.
a comparison of Annexure 'B' and 'C' it is clear that though the
salary structure of the SNPF was adopted, it was not one hundred
percent adopted. Three employees' salaries were enhanced more than
double. These figures are not reflected in Annex 'B' of the Notice of
is therefore not correct to say the SNPF salary structure was adopted
as is. It would be more appropriate to say that ninety eight percent
of what appears on Annexure 'B' was adopted by the Fund.
is also important to mention that all the executive members' salaries
were increased in line with Annex 'B', save for the salary of the
Annex 'B' with Annex 'C' it is clear that the adoption of the salary
structure was lateral in so far as it concerns the executive. For
example the Chief Executive Officer in the respondent's employ was
upgraded to earning the same salary as the Chief Executive Officer in
the employ of SNPF. The same was true of the other job categories of
the executives of the respondent.
Mr. J.F. Mabuza, the financial accountant of respondent told the
court that there was no formal adoption of any structure by the fund
were used to reach respondent's salary review objectives. He stated
that the SNPF salary structure was used but not to its entirety.
to RW2 the issue of salaries is handled by the CEO. He stated that at
the Fund there is no formal grading of posts. The CEO. is the one who
unilaterally decides who should get what.
to this witness applicant's salary was raised in terms of Annexure
'B'. On presentation of the new structure the CEO altered applicant's
new salary and equated it with that of the senior benefits
to this witness the applicant was not in good terms with the CEO. It
is the evidence of this witness that applicant was not allowed in
meetings of the executives though he was an executive. The reason
from the CEO was that the applicant divulged secretes regarding
salaries and other confidential material.
further pointed out that it is against the company policy to discuss
peoples salaries. However, there is no evidence that the CEO charged
the applicant and found him guilty of this offence. We only hear that
he was banned from attending any meeting of the executive.
to this information it is clear that the CEO in this corporation was
running a one man show. He was the one and only one who decided who
should get what. In this case it was clear that the applicant was not
in his good books. We really do not know whether the salary accorded
to the j applicant was the proper one.
to RW2 he gave applicant the corresponding package of the manager
administration of the SNPF (Annex 'B'). This was however, changed by
the CEO giving no reasons to RW2 for charging the figure. It is clear
that RW2 as a financial manager had used professional discretion in
awarding applicant such a salary.
to RW1, the CEO, the structure of SNPF was used as a guideline and it
was not adopted. The financial manager used the SNPF structure and
then presented it to the CEO. RW1 stated that the salaries of the
three managers maintained the differences between them.
CEO stated that after completion the salaries were discussed with the
chairman of the board of trustees and later presented to the board
is clear that at no time did the CEO sit down with the three managers
to deliberate on this study. He did not tell us in his evidence that
the financial manager had given applicant an amount equivalent to the
administration manager of the SNPF and that he (CEO) rejected that
figure and substituted it with a lower one. He also did not tell us
that the administration manager who was in charge of human resources
was not allowed to sit in any meeting where staff issues and salaries
were discussed. He further did not tell us that he was not in good
terms with the applicant because the applicant used to divulge
really do not know why this witness hid this important information
regarding his relationship with the applicant.
we know is that the way the CEO ran the organisation was not
professional. Such a system of administration would allow
unscrupulous individuals to use the high office in order to settle
personal scores against members of staff who happened to be in their
order to introduce checks and balances in an organisation it is
necessary that issues regarding salaries which is one of major
expenditures in any organisation be debated by management- After such
a debate the CEO then transmits the document to the board of trustees
the instant case it is clear that the CEO, in substituting the figure
presented by the financial manager for a lower one was actuated by
malice. He was not acting in good faith. His intention was to
prejudice the applicant who was not in his good books.
the above reasons and conclusions the applicant's application
succeeds. Respondent to pay to applicant the amount as reflected in
the applicant's prayer.
to further pay the applicant a salary equivalent to the
administration manager of the SNPF as reflected in Annexure 'B'. This
should be with effect from the payday of October 2002.
order as to costs.
- INDUSTRIAL COURT