The SA Revenue Service (SARS) will implement a delayed 6.2% salary increase for its employees after it was rejected by Cosatu affiliate, the National Education, Health and Allied Workers' Union (Nehawu).

SARS approached the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, in a bid to make a settlement agreement with the Public Servants Association (PSA) an order of the court.

The tax revenue collection agency told the High Court that it entered into an agreement with the PSA to settle the dispute over the salary increases.

It insisted that its agreement with the PSA was also binding on Nehawu, which the union disagreed with.

The agency applied for its agreement to be made an order of the court that was binding on Nehawu.

Earlier this month, Judge Mncedisi Kumalo ruled that the settlement agreement was binding on all members of SARS’ bargaining unit, including members of Nehawu.

Nehawu had claimed in court that wage agreements should not be made court orders, but Judge Kumalo disagreed.

He said a 2014 Labour Appeal Court (LAC) ruling on the right of public servants to go on strike against the government was not binding on the present dispute over salary increases.

The LAC refused to make the settlement agreement an order of the court and its employees did not stop the court from making a wage deal an order.

“I am of the view that the decision does not prevent a court from making a settlement an order of the court. The court has, at the very least, as pointed out by Nehawu in its heads of argument, a discretion whether to do so,” the judge stated.

Judge Kumalo continued: “I accept that the settlement agreement between the parties was a compromise. It was open to SARS and PSA to decide how to settle their dispute regarding the judgment, that is, the implementation of the third year of the multi-year wage agreement.”

According to the ruling, it therefore did not constitute a variation of the main agreement in the strict sense.

“I accept the applicant’s (SARS’) submission that it does not fall foul of the non-variation clause in the main agreement,” explained Judge Kumalo.

He added that the agreement was in full and final settlement of the dispute arising from the non-implementation of the third year of the wage agreement.

“This court has discretion to make it an order of the court, and I am of the view that the circumstances in this matter call for it to exercise such discretion in the positive and make it an order of the court,” the judge stated.

*This article was first published by Eye Witness News