Report of the Portfolio Committee on Labour on public hearings on employment equity held on 13 and 14 May 2003
The Portfolio Committee on Labour, having conducted the hearings and having noted the presentations and submissions made to it, reports as follows:
A. Terms of reference
The Committee resolved to conduct the hearings on 13 and 14 May 2003. The objectives of the hearings were to:
The Committee agreed that a report would be compiled and tabled in Parliament after all the information had been collated and analysed.
B. Background
The process began by placing an advertisement about the hearings in the media and by sending invitations to various organisations. A time frame was set within which all interested parties had to submit requests to appear before the Committee and or send written submissions to it.
Written submissions were received from the following interested individual stakeholders and organisations:
The following organisations appeared before the Committee:
Stakeholders from Nedlac included the Community Constituency and Business South Africa (BSA), who represented organised business.
The Committee received a briefing from the CEE on its key achievements and its analysis of employment equity in both the public and the private sector. The presentation was based on the findings of its 2001/2002 annual report.
Representations by the BMF, BSA and FABCOS gave an indication of employment equity in the private sector organisations.
The CCMA's presentation focussed on its perspective on the implications of the Employment Equity Act. The CGE based its presentation on research it conducted in 1999, which targeted the private sector. The CGE highlighted a need to develop guidelines based on the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).
The presentations by the DPSA and the Community Constituency highlighted the involvement of the DPSA in the development of a code of good practice and technical assistance guidelines on the employment of people with disabilities, and the relation between skills development and employment equity.
A concern was raised about the absence of a presentation or a written submission from the major labour federations; only the SU was present.
The issues raised during the hearings were around the following:
(1) Implementation matters
The Committee sought clarity on whether employment equity plans were supported by company policies, and whether the information on employment equity, which were collected through organisational audits, were used by the Setas. Some employers used the inadequate levels of skills or management capacity as a reason for failing to comply with the Act. Such employees should be capacitated. Employers should engage consultants and other stakeholders to train them on the reporting requirements of the Act.
Clarity was also sought on the verification procedure used by the DOL to ensure that employment equity committees are in place. External participants should be engaged to facilitate workplace employment equity forums.
The Committee noted the considerable progress made by the public sector employers in implementing the Employment Equity Act as an instrument of social transformation. An appeal was made for urgent action in response to low levels of compliance in the private sector, particularly at top and senior management level.
The Committee enquired whether there was any appreciable improvement in respect of the income differential between the designated and non-designated groups. It was noted that the latter was not covered by the report of the CEE. A proposal was made that the CEE approach the ECC to consider releasing information on income differentials to coincide with the CEE report.
The Committee questioned the rationale behind the inclusion of White females in the definition of designated groups on the basis that they could not be equated with women from other populations. The reason was that they had benefited from access to education and training in the previous dispensation.
The Committee expressed the view that there was a need to implement employment equity in the Seta learnerships. It was also felt that the DOL, being the major partner in the implementation of this legislation, should be engaged in this regard.
More clarity was sought on the reasons for termination of employment. The Committee was of the view that this area had not been covered comprehensively in the CEE's report. It was suggested that this matter be reflected in the next report of the CEE. The CEE agreed that further investigations would be launched to establish whether there were additional reasons for the termination of employment.
(2) Awareness, advocacy and training
The Committee was concerned that information on employment equity was not reaching the smaller and non-designated employers, and the unemployed. It was suggested that greater public awareness should be achieved on codes of good practice and technical assistance guidelines, especially those in the employment of people with disabilities and on sexual harassment.
Clarity was sought on measures used to empower the unemployed and designated groups in respect of the implications of the Act for the recruitment new employees. The Committee also noted that the slow progress in respect of employment equity was resulting on resignations. The DOL advised that an aggressive campaign to familiarise all parties concerned with the requirements of the Act would be embarked upon..
It was suggested that the DOL conduct talks on the codes of practice as part of an advocacy campaign.
(3) Enforcement
A concern was expressed at the non-availability of enforcement measures taken by the DOL. There was a need to improve enforcement processes and procedures, and cases brought to the Labour Court had to make enforcement visible. It was also suggested that the schedule of fines be revised and be linked to inflation. The databases of the DOL, the CCMA, the Labour Court and the CGE should be linked in order to improve the monitoring efforts. A suggestion was also made to link employment equity with state procurement as a way of increasing the enforcement capacity. The higher education sector could be targeted for enforcement, with particular attention to the lack of gender representation at higher levels.
(4) Capacity, technological application and legislative links
The Committee expressed the view that the universe of designated employers had not yet been established for employment equity. It was proposed that the DOL address the latter. Clarity was sought on the strategy used to promote employment equity imperatives in the employer category of 50 or less. In order to qualify for the public sector procurement tenders, many employers in that category had chosen to participate in the employment equity process out of expediency. In addition, since the inspectorate collects information on employer practices across the spectrum, regardless of the size of each organisation concerned, many employers in the category required by law to comply with the Act were already being monitored.
Clarity was sought on the link between employment equity and skills development. The Committee was advised that the DOL is required to facilitate the employment equity and skills development programmes in such way that opportunities for linkages are optimised. The Commission was currently working on the skills development code of practice.
The Committee suggested that the linkage between the Skills Development Act and the Employment Equity Acts needed to be enhanced.
(5) Matters pertaining to the CEE
Role of the CEE
The Committee noted a concern raised by one of the participants on the role of the CEE. A need was therefore identified to profile the CEE and its work in order to rectify misconceptions in respect of its mandate, which is primarily to advise the Minister of Labour. Consultation between the CEE, BMF, CGE and DOL was proposed.
(6) Employment Equity Awards
The Committee was informed about the proposed award system. The DOL was cautioned that although such a system could serve as an incentive for compliance, it might be interpreted by some as an acknowledgement of failure to enforce compliance and an attempt at appeasement. The Committee was advised that provisions for an award system had been included in the Act, and formed part of the programme of work of the CEE. The existing business excellence awards tended not include compliance with the Act as a qualifying criterion. However, the envisaged award system would be different in this regard. The DOL further noted that in future, the annual reports on employment equity would provide employers with an opportunity to articulate their concerns about the constraints faced by business in complying with the Act. These would be used in developing an appropriate award system.
A proposal was made that norms and benchmarks are required to give employers more concrete direction. It was suggested therefore that the CEE should develop those norms and benchmarks.
(7) Amendments to the Employment Equity Act
Issues to be covered by amendments to the Act were as follows:
(8) Amendments to the Regulations
Issues to be covered by amendments to the Regulations were as follows:
This was mentioned as part of identifying problems experienced by the employers in the implementation of the legislation. The CEE initiated site visits to selected employers. These visits will also inform the process of reviewing the Act and administrative regulations.
(9) CEE annual report
A request was made for information on the income differential to be made available at the same time when the annual report of the CEE became available. The CEE should consider devoting a section of the annual report to issues surrounding gender mainstreaming. It was also suggested that the CEE's report should not only provide statistical data, but also report on problems encountered with the implementation of the relevant legislation.
(10) Wider social developments
Part of the deliberations during the hearings brought to light certain developments in wider society that impinge on the implementation of the Employment Equity Act. These included state procurement processes, Black economic empowerment initiatives and, in particular, the proposed Broad-Based Black Empowerment Bill.
Submissions received:
Proposals
The number of discrimination cases brought to the CCMA in terms of the Act had increased.
Proposal
The CCMA case system could be linked to the Labour Court system.
Proposal
An amendment should be drafted into the Act that would ensure the recognition of the Chinese of South Africa as being historically disadvantaged.
The submission by Fabcos referred to statistical evidence and showed the need to implement the provisions of the Act more aggressively in order to address historical imbalances in the workplace.
Proposal
(c) The CEE should consider devoting a section of its annual report to this sector.
Employers do not always monitor and evaluate whether targets and policies have been implemented.
Proposals
(a) Companies need to develop gender policies.
(b) The roles of the chief executive officer, the DOL and management need to be clarified, and key performance areas need to be introduced for each role. The CEE should introduce an annual report card as a public sector monitoring instrument.
(c) The link between cases brought to the CGE and to the CCMA needs to be formalised.
(d) Human resource planning should include promotions.
(e) Jobs should be created in terms of its context and value. Skills needed to be assessed in an objective manner.
(f) There is a need to develop sexual harassment policies in the workplace.
(g) Companies should report to the CEE on how they have implemented the Act in order to allow for proper monitoring.
Proposals
(a) Trade unions should raise issues of disability and accommodation at collective bargaining.
(b) A campaign needs to be embarked upon to change mindsets on and traditional stereotyping of disability.
(c) There is a need to develop a database of service providers for equipment and tools of trade for people with disabilities.
(d) Employers should use international standards to guide them on disability issues.
(e) Skills training should be made accessible to people with disabilities.
(f) Learnership programmes should provide employment opportunities for people with disabilities.
(a) The people responsible for the implementation of EE are top white male managers. It therefore becomes difficult for the to implement a policy that is going to affect them negatively.
Proposals
(3) The DOL has to examine a strategy of addressing employers with less than 50 employees.
(4) Reports were submitted without being informed by policies and budgets to ensure the implementation of the plan. In future there is a need to look at the system of reviewing employer plans.
(5) In order to assist workers to understand their rights in terms of the EEA, SDA, and LRA. Stakeholders such as labour and business need to play a role in strengthening the awareness programme that is already in place.
(6) The role of Setas and skills development in the implementation of employment equity needed to be emphasised.
(7) The capacity of the inspectorate is insufficient to meet the demands of the legislation concerned. The matter requires an urgent attention from the DOL.
(8) The DOL should popularize the code of good practise on disability, and the finalisation of technical assistance guidelines be speeded up.
(9) The proposals by the SU be rejected as they are intended to defeat the purpose of the EEA, SDA, LRA and the Constitution.