[TYPE THE COMPANY NAME]
HRM3705 Assignment 3
(COMPLETE GUIDELINE)
Semester 1 2025 - DUE
25 April 2025
NO PLAGIARISM
[Pick the date]
[Type the abstract of the document here. The abstract is typically a short summary of the contents of
the document. Type the abstract of the document here. The abstract is typically a short summary of
the contents of the document.]
,INTRODUCTION
In today’s competitive business environment, effective remuneration strategies are essential to
attracting, motivating, and retaining top talent. This assignment explores how organisations
operating in South Africa, such as CheckSmart Retail, LumaTech, and ZuluTech, can address
remuneration challenges through strategic HR practices and job evaluation systems. The need for
consistency in pay structures, internal equity, legal compliance, and alignment with
organisational goals is increasingly vital, especially during periods of growth, restructuring, or
merger. The assignment begins by evaluating the application of the point-factor job evaluation
method to harmonise job levels across newly merged retail stores. It then examines how
legislative frameworks such as the Basic Conditions of Employment Act and the Employment
Equity Act influence remuneration policies and ensure fairness. Further, the development of a
robust remuneration strategy tailored to LumaTech’s innovation-driven culture is discussed,
followed by a critical analysis of ZuluTech’s equity challenges. The assignment integrates best
practice principles and practical solutions to promote fairness and strategic alignment.
QUESTION 1
To address the inconsistencies in pay between the “Customer Service Supervisor” and the “Floor
Team Leader,” CheckSmart Retail could implement a point-factor job evaluation system. This
method systematically determines the relative value of jobs by assigning points to various job
components, known as compensable factors. It allows the organisation to objectively compare
roles, regardless of titles, based on their actual content and contribution to the business.
1. Using the Point-Factor Method
The point-factor system evaluates jobs by breaking them down into key compensable factors
such as skills, responsibilities, effort, and working conditions. Each factor is weighted according
to its importance and assigned a numerical score. The total score determines the job’s relative w
For CheckSmart, this approach would reveal whether the current pay differences between the
Customer Service Supervisor and the Floor Team Leader are justified based on job content rather than
job title. By using the point-factor method, CheckSmart can ensure that compensation is both internally
equitable and aligned with market standards, improving fairness and transparency across its stores.
orth and appropriate pay grade. For CheckSmart, this approach would reveal whether the
QUESTION 1: Using the Point-Factor Method to Address Pay Inconsistencies at
CheckSmart Retail
, In today’s dynamic retail environment, organisations must establish equitable and transparent
pay structures that align with both internal job value and external market expectations.
CheckSmart Retail, following a recent merger of multiple stores, is facing discrepancies in
remuneration between two critical roles: the Customer Service Supervisor and the Floor Team
Leader. To ensure fairness, legal compliance, and internal equity, the company can adopt the
Point-Factor Job Evaluation Method—a systematic and objective approach to determining the
relative worth of jobs.
The point-factor method evaluates jobs by breaking them down into fundamental compensable
factors such as skills, responsibilities, effort, and working conditions. Each of these factors is
assigned a specific weight based on its strategic importance to the organisation. Jobs are then
scored according to their level of demand in each factor, and the resulting total points determine
their relative value. This method enables organisations to evaluate job content rather than job
title, thereby creating a consistent basis for pay differentiation.
At CheckSmart Retail, the following compensable factors have been identified and weighted:
Skills – 35%
Responsibilities – 30%
Effort – 20%
Working Conditions – 15%
Both the Customer Service Supervisor and the Floor Team Leader roles can be evaluated against
these factors. Based on a five-point rating scale, the Customer Service Supervisor is rated higher
in areas such as skills (4), responsibilities (5), and working conditions (2), while the Floor Team
Leader scores slightly higher in effort (4) due to the physical demands of the role. The detailed
evaluation is as follows:
Compensable Factor Supervisor Rating Team Leader Rating
Skills 4 (×35 = 140) 3 (×35 = 105)
Responsibilities 5 (×30 = 150) 4 (×30 = 120)
Effort 3 (×20 = 60) 4 (×20 = 80)
Working Conditions 2 (×15 = 30) 3 (×15 = 45)
Total Points 380 350
The results indicate that the Customer Service Supervisor role has a higher overall value (380
points) compared to the Floor Team Leader (350 points). Although both roles are relatively close
in terms of job complexity and value, the marginal difference justifies a modest difference in
compensation. If the current pay gap between the two roles is significantly greater than what the
point spread suggests, adjustments may be necessary to avoid perceptions of unfairness or non-
compliance with fair labour practices.
Adopting this method benefits CheckSmart Retail in several ways. First, it creates a transparent
and defensible pay system based on objective job requirements rather than subjective or
outdated titles. Second, it supports internal equity, ensuring that employees performing roles of
similar value receive comparable compensation. Third, it assists the organisation in complying
HRM3705 Assignment 3
(COMPLETE GUIDELINE)
Semester 1 2025 - DUE
25 April 2025
NO PLAGIARISM
[Pick the date]
[Type the abstract of the document here. The abstract is typically a short summary of the contents of
the document. Type the abstract of the document here. The abstract is typically a short summary of
the contents of the document.]
,INTRODUCTION
In today’s competitive business environment, effective remuneration strategies are essential to
attracting, motivating, and retaining top talent. This assignment explores how organisations
operating in South Africa, such as CheckSmart Retail, LumaTech, and ZuluTech, can address
remuneration challenges through strategic HR practices and job evaluation systems. The need for
consistency in pay structures, internal equity, legal compliance, and alignment with
organisational goals is increasingly vital, especially during periods of growth, restructuring, or
merger. The assignment begins by evaluating the application of the point-factor job evaluation
method to harmonise job levels across newly merged retail stores. It then examines how
legislative frameworks such as the Basic Conditions of Employment Act and the Employment
Equity Act influence remuneration policies and ensure fairness. Further, the development of a
robust remuneration strategy tailored to LumaTech’s innovation-driven culture is discussed,
followed by a critical analysis of ZuluTech’s equity challenges. The assignment integrates best
practice principles and practical solutions to promote fairness and strategic alignment.
QUESTION 1
To address the inconsistencies in pay between the “Customer Service Supervisor” and the “Floor
Team Leader,” CheckSmart Retail could implement a point-factor job evaluation system. This
method systematically determines the relative value of jobs by assigning points to various job
components, known as compensable factors. It allows the organisation to objectively compare
roles, regardless of titles, based on their actual content and contribution to the business.
1. Using the Point-Factor Method
The point-factor system evaluates jobs by breaking them down into key compensable factors
such as skills, responsibilities, effort, and working conditions. Each factor is weighted according
to its importance and assigned a numerical score. The total score determines the job’s relative w
For CheckSmart, this approach would reveal whether the current pay differences between the
Customer Service Supervisor and the Floor Team Leader are justified based on job content rather than
job title. By using the point-factor method, CheckSmart can ensure that compensation is both internally
equitable and aligned with market standards, improving fairness and transparency across its stores.
orth and appropriate pay grade. For CheckSmart, this approach would reveal whether the
QUESTION 1: Using the Point-Factor Method to Address Pay Inconsistencies at
CheckSmart Retail
, In today’s dynamic retail environment, organisations must establish equitable and transparent
pay structures that align with both internal job value and external market expectations.
CheckSmart Retail, following a recent merger of multiple stores, is facing discrepancies in
remuneration between two critical roles: the Customer Service Supervisor and the Floor Team
Leader. To ensure fairness, legal compliance, and internal equity, the company can adopt the
Point-Factor Job Evaluation Method—a systematic and objective approach to determining the
relative worth of jobs.
The point-factor method evaluates jobs by breaking them down into fundamental compensable
factors such as skills, responsibilities, effort, and working conditions. Each of these factors is
assigned a specific weight based on its strategic importance to the organisation. Jobs are then
scored according to their level of demand in each factor, and the resulting total points determine
their relative value. This method enables organisations to evaluate job content rather than job
title, thereby creating a consistent basis for pay differentiation.
At CheckSmart Retail, the following compensable factors have been identified and weighted:
Skills – 35%
Responsibilities – 30%
Effort – 20%
Working Conditions – 15%
Both the Customer Service Supervisor and the Floor Team Leader roles can be evaluated against
these factors. Based on a five-point rating scale, the Customer Service Supervisor is rated higher
in areas such as skills (4), responsibilities (5), and working conditions (2), while the Floor Team
Leader scores slightly higher in effort (4) due to the physical demands of the role. The detailed
evaluation is as follows:
Compensable Factor Supervisor Rating Team Leader Rating
Skills 4 (×35 = 140) 3 (×35 = 105)
Responsibilities 5 (×30 = 150) 4 (×30 = 120)
Effort 3 (×20 = 60) 4 (×20 = 80)
Working Conditions 2 (×15 = 30) 3 (×15 = 45)
Total Points 380 350
The results indicate that the Customer Service Supervisor role has a higher overall value (380
points) compared to the Floor Team Leader (350 points). Although both roles are relatively close
in terms of job complexity and value, the marginal difference justifies a modest difference in
compensation. If the current pay gap between the two roles is significantly greater than what the
point spread suggests, adjustments may be necessary to avoid perceptions of unfairness or non-
compliance with fair labour practices.
Adopting this method benefits CheckSmart Retail in several ways. First, it creates a transparent
and defensible pay system based on objective job requirements rather than subjective or
outdated titles. Second, it supports internal equity, ensuring that employees performing roles of
similar value receive comparable compensation. Third, it assists the organisation in complying
