In many industries, particularly sales, hospitality and service-oriented sectors, commission-based pay structures are commonly used as a way of incentivising performance. While commission can be an effective remuneration tool, it often raises a critical legal question: can commission replace or fall below the statutory minimum wage? The law is clear that commission arrangements must operate within the framework of minimum wage protection and cannot be used to undermine a worker’s basic entitlement to a guaranteed minimum income, and we will see this as we go through this article.
The Act
Section 186 of the Employment and Labour Relations Act firmly establishes the principle that where a minimum wages order applies, no contract of employment may lawfully provide for payment below that prescribed minimum. Even if an employee agrees to a commission-only structure, such an agreement cannot override the statutory protection. The law intervenes automatically to adjust the contract so that it complies with the minimum wage, ensuring that the worker is not left vulnerable to unpredictable or insufficient earnings.
Commission-based pay is therefore not unlawful in itself, but it must be structured carefully. In practice, this means that commission may be paid on top of the minimum wage, or as a variable component that supplements a guaranteed base pay. What the law does not permit is a situation where a worker’s total earnings, after commission is calculated, fall below the minimum wage threshold for the relevant period. Employers remain legally responsible for topping up any shortfall to meet the statutory minimum.
The importance of this protection becomes evident when considering the inherent uncertainty of commission income. Market conditions, customer demand, seasonal fluctuations and operational decisions by the employer can all affect a worker’s ability to earn commission. Without the safeguard of a minimum wage, workers would carry an unfair level of risk, effectively subsidising business uncertainty with their livelihoods. Section 186 addresses this imbalance by placing the risk squarely on the employer rather than the worker.
The law also attaches serious consequences to non-compliance. An employer who fails to pay a worker at or above the minimum wage commits an offence and may face fines or imprisonment as per section 186(2). Beyond criminal sanctions, the Industrial Court is empowered to order the employer to pay the difference between what should have been paid under the minimum wage order and what was actually paid, potentially covering a retrospective period of up to two years. This underscores that minimum wage compliance is not merely a contractual issue but a matter of public policy and labour protection.
From a worker relations perspective, misunderstanding the relationship between commission and minimum wage often leads to disputes, low morale and high turnover. Workers who consistently earn below the minimum wage due to low commission pay may feel exploited, even where no exploitation was intended. Clear contracts, transparent pay calculations and regular monitoring of earnings against minimum wage thresholds are therefore essential management practices.
Conclusion
In conclusion, commission cannot lawfully replace the minimum wage where a minimum wage order applies. The minimum wage is a statutory floor, not a target, and commission is best viewed as a performance-based enhancement rather than a substitute. Section 186 ensures that workers retain a guaranteed level of income dignity, while still allowing employers flexibility to reward performance. For employers, the lesson is simple: commission schemes must always be designed and administered with minimum wage compliance at their core, not as an afterthought.
Contacts
If you want to join our free HR WhatsApp group or to consult, contact us on:
Gaborone: +267 75 546 784, +267 393 9435 or info@aupracontax.co.bw
Maun: +267 74 037 833, +267 686 0117 or tax5@aupracontax.co.bw
