The dismissed applicant, as mentioned in the preceding paragraph, was withdrawn by AKELCO as an act of compassion and on humanitarian grounds on the condition of “no work, no pay” with effect from March 1993. After ten (10) months, the complainants requested payment of their arrears for the period from 16 June 1992 to 18 March 1993. The complainants alleged that AKELCO had paid their salaries from January to May 1992 and again from 19 March 1993. AKELCO refuted the fact that the plaintiffs had unlawfully collected fees and charges owed to AKELCO and had appropriated the recoveries between them in order to pay their salaries from January to May 1992. For this reason, the complainants claimed wages only for the period from 16 June 1992 to March 1993. Are the complainants right? In the recent judgment of the Labour Court Macsteel Service Centres SA (Pty) Ltd v National Union of Metal Workers of South Africa and others  OJL 47372 (LC) (Macsteel), delivered on 3 June 2020, the court was urged to make an order regarding the unprotected status of strike action. In its decision, however, the court addressed the topical issue of the applicability of the “no work, no salary” principle to the Covid-19 lockdown period. The court first congratulated the applicant company for not introducing work and wages during the lockdown period and for continuing to pay workers in full even if they were unable to provide their services. This view was widely seen as unfair and unacceptable to employers. The fundamental question that every employer faces is why they should pay an employee for work that has not been done, even if there is no justified reason not to do so. The following information is intended to answer some of the most frequently asked questions when private and public employers require workers to take time off and make further cuts in wages and/or hours worked as businesses and state and local governments adapt to economic challenges. According to the Supreme Court, this would be contrary to the intention of the Wage Compensation Institute, which constitutes a right to social security resulting from the employment relationship and constitutes a continuous payment in the event of a justified absence from work. The obligation to pay wages is not an automatic consequence of the existence of an employment relationship between the parties, but constitutes remuneration for the work performed (with the exception of the exceptions mentioned above).
The Supreme Court also held that a reference to the legislative provisions on the deduction of wages was irrelevant, since the present question concerns the justification for wage compensation and not the (unauthorized) deduction of wages. Section 13(a)(1) of the RSA requires the payment of at least $684* per week on a “salary basis” for persons employed as exempt management, administrative or professional employees. See fact sheet #17G. A salary is a predetermined amount that represents all or part of the employee`s remuneration and is not reduced due to fluctuations in the quality or quantity of work performed. As of January 1, 2020, employers will be able to use non-discretionary bonuses and incentive payments (including commissions) paid annually or more frequently to reach up to 10% of the standard salary. Even if a general strike or a national ban disrupts public transport systems and, as a result, workers cannot access their jobs, the same principle prevails. Even hard-line union leaders respect this principle of equality and natural justice. “No work, no reward” lays a solid foundation for long-term industrial peace and harmony.  Although this implies that the applicant company was not obliged to pay the workers for the period during which they did not work and could not work, the court went further and made it clear that the legal principle “no work, no wages” applies to the Covid-19 lockdown period. In this context, the Court held that whether child care under the RSA is an hour worked depends on the particular circumstances.
In general, the facts may show that the employee was forced to wait (which is working time), or the facts may show that the employee waited to be hired (which is not working time). Deductions from the wages of an employee of a public body for absences due to budgetary leave entitle the employee to a salary only during the work week in which the leave takes place and for which the salary is reduced accordingly below 29 C.F.R. 541,710. See FAQ #9 below. Subsequently, the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court stated that in this current time of COVID-19, the principle of “no work – no wages” cannot be applied by employers, as these are exceptional circumstances and the courts cannot be insensitive to these workers, unfortunately they have to deal with the COVID-19 outbreak and no work – no wages can be maintained, since the well-being of workers should also be taken into account. Can a self-employed employee volunteer to be absent from work due to a lack of work? In this case, the court had to decide whether the defendant company should be placed under a business bailout within the meaning of paragraph 131(4)(a) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 (the Act). In its decision, the court had to determine whether the defendant company was legally required to pay its employees during the Covid-19 lockdown period. In this context, the Court considered the common law doctrine of overcoming impossibility, according to which performance is excused in respect of a contract if performance is objectively rendered impossible.
The court held that the defendant company`s obligation to pay its employees was still effective and at no time made impossible. In addition, the Court recalled that the obligation to pay does not result from the actual execution of the works, but from the call for tenders for the service. The court went even further and ruled that the lockdown level 5 regulations made it clear that there was still an obligation for employers to pay employees as the implementation of payroll systems was listed as an essential service. The court therefore came to the conclusion and ruled that a compelling impossibility was not applicable and that the defendant company was legally obliged to pay its employees. Home » Labour Law » No work, no pay – what do the courts say? This can be a complicated situation, especially for larger or unionized workers. If you need a guide, do not hesitate to contact us. This issue was eventually brought before the Supreme Court of Slovenia. In its judgment VIII Ips 206/2018 of 8 October 2019, the Supreme Court allowed a reconsideration of the question of whether the employer is obliged to pay the employee if he does not come to work and does not justify or justify the reason for his absence. An employer is not prohibited from reducing the predetermined amount of wages to be paid regularly to a Part 541-exempt employee in the event of a business or economic downturn, provided that the change is in good faith and is not used as a means of circumventing basic wage requirements. Such a predetermined regular wage reduction, which is not related to the quantity or quality of the work performed, will not result in the loss of the exemption as long as the employee receives at least $684* per week on a salary basis.
On the other hand, deductions from predetermined earnings caused by daily or weekly surveys of the business`s operational needs are ineligible deductions from predetermined wages and would result in the loss of the exemption. The difference is that the first case involves a planned reduction in predetermined wage to reflect the long-term needs of the business, rather than a short-term, daily or weekly deduction from the fixed wage for absences from planned work caused by the employer or its business activities. .