AIDS LAW PROJECT SUBMISSION ON
HIV/AIDS WORKPLACE DISCRIMINATION
PORTFOLIO
COMMITTEE ON LABOUR
PUBLIC
HEARINGS ON WORKPLACE DISCRIMINATION
12
SEPTEMBER 2007
Drafted by Dan Pretorius
Contributor Fatima Hassan
INTRODUCTION
1
We would like to thank the
Portfolio Committee on Labour for the opportunity to make this submission. Due
to the time constraints in our preparation of this submission, we are available
at the request of the committee at any time to supplement any part/s of this
submission.
2
The AIDS Law Project (ALP) is
formally associated with the
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
3
The following is a summary of
our key recommendations, which are set out in greater detail below:
3.1
The penalties
in cases where unfair discrimination is found to have occurred including in
cases where an employer violates the injunction against conducting direct and
indirect HIV testing at its request, should be strengthened.
3.2
HIV/AIDS
workplace policies should become a legal requirement for all employers, and
appropriate mechanisms should be introduced to monitor the adoption and
implementation of such policies
3.3
Government
departments represented at the National Economic Development and Labour
Advisory Council (Nedlac) should commit themselves in the proposed joint 2007
Nedlac task team on HIV/AIDS, to funding and promoting
programmes to eliminate HIV-related stigma and discrimination, in line with the
National Strategic Plan (NSP) on HIV/AIDS 2007-2011
BACKGROUND
4
5
Guidelines developed by the International
Labour Organisation (ILO) and the Code of Good Practice on HIV/AIDS, which is
linked to the Employment Equity Act (EEA), provides useful information on the
content of HIV workplace policies.
6
Many large employers have adopted workplace
policies to mitigate the impact of the HIV epidemic on their business. Some of
them have been at the forefront in providing HIV prevention, care and treatment
services since 2002 at no cost to low income earning employees.
7
However, despite these positive
developments, the AIDS Law Project continues to receive many complaints
regarding unfair dismissals, unfair discrimination, and the mismanagement of
HIV-related cases in the workplace, in small, medium and large enterprises.
7.1
In our experience, it appears that the
implementation of HIV workplace policies is often patchy, with large companies
adopting a policy at a national office level, and failing to ensure that
information on the content of the policy (or even its existence) is
disseminated at branch or department level.
7.2
While some companies offer free workplace
prevention, care and treatment programmes, the historical fear of breaches of
confidentiality and dismissal amongst employees has been a significant barrier
to the up-take of these services within the workplace.
7.3
There is also a tendency among some
companies and government departments to limit education and awareness
activities to an annual World AIDS Day event and/or the distribution of
pamphlets. This means that a significant opportunity for real education on HIV
prevention, testing, treatment, and the reduction of stigma is being missed.
EXAMPLE
A government
employee disclosed her status at her department’s World AIDS Day Event. Her supervisor and the rest of senior
management were supportive towards her, but her colleagues refused to sit next
her in the canteen anymore and would not touch anything (including pens) which
she had handled. She also started
receiving threatening phone calls in her office, telling her to “go and die at
home because we don’t want you here.”
7.4
A survey of workplace policies conducted by
the South African Business Council on HIV/AIDS (SABCOHA) in 2004 shows that
while many large employers in the private sector have active HIV workplace
policies, very few small and medium enterprises have adopted or implemented
workplace policies at all. This is problematic as the majority of the unfair
dismissal and discrimination cases, which the AIDS Law Project has dealt with
in the past two years, involve small companies and individual employers
(generally employers of domestic workers).
7.5
Many small employers do not appear to
recognize the need for managing HIV in the workplace. Discrimination against
employees living with HIV is often motivated by ignorance of HIV transmission
and the perception that the employee is a threat.
7.6
In situations where employees are poorly
paid, non-unionised, have low job security and minimal formal education,
employers do flout the law leaving the employee without recourse and/or even
access to the justice system.
7.7
For many employees in small workplaces,
where about half earn less than R 2 500 per month, HIV-related stigma and
discrimination is a reality. This prevents many employees from disclosing their
status and/or accessing legal protections and prevention, care and treatment
services that may be available.
EXAMPLES
A
mechanic employed by a small company was dismissed for incapacity, despite the
fact that he provided management with a doctor’s certificate stating that he
had started ARV treatment and was fit to return to work.
A
metalworker disclosed his HIV status to his supervisor and a co-worker, and he
expected them to maintain his confidentiality.
However, he soon discovered that everyone in the workplace knew his
status. Information on his status then
reached his neighbours and community, and community members and relatives
started pressurising his girlfriend to leave him.
7.8
The proper implementation of HIV workplace
policies can do a lot to decrease stigma, create an environment, which
encourages disclosure, encourage testing, and assist employees to access proper
medical treatment.
7.9
However, many companies and organisations
have not voluntarily adopted and implemented HIV policies for a number of
reasons relating to perceived costs lack of expertise or disinterest.
8
The
legal framework
8.1
The legal framework, consisting of the EEA,
the Labour Relations Act (LRA), the Basic Conditions of Employment Act, the
Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) and the Compensation for Occupational
Injuries and Diseases Act (COIDA), provides employees with some
protection.
8.2
However, the problem lies with implementation
-- although there are some gaps in the legislation (enforceability of the Code
of Good Practice and the legal position of casualised employees).
Access
to legal services to enforce labour rights
8.3
Employees who are unfairly dismissed or
subjected to discrimination and unfair labour practices face several barriers
to accessing the legal system.
8.4
Firstly, the employees who are most
vulnerable to discrimination are also those who are least likely to have ready
access to information on their rights.
For example, many domestic workers are unaware of the existence of the
CCMA.
8.5
Secondly, trade union representatives are
often ill equipped to deal with matters involving HIV-related discrimination,
and the AIDS Law Project has dealt with a number of cases involving union
members who were unable to obtain satisfactory assistance from their
unions.
8.6
In addition to this, there are increasing
numbers of non-unionised employees who are unable to access appropriate legal
assistance if their cases are not resolved at the CCMA or Bargaining
Council.
8.7
Some employers exploit this by refusing to
cooperate with the CCMA conciliation process, and thus ensuring that the matter
is referred to the
The impact of the casualisation of labour
8.8
Perhaps the biggest gap in the current
legal framework involves the position of workers in workplaces, which are
casualised, or workers employed through labour brokers.
8.9
Despite amendments to the labour law, many
casual workers still fall outside the provisions of the law, and these
categories of workers often do not have access to the health care and other
benefits available in their places of work.
EXAMPLE
Other
more vulnerable sectors of workers include domestic workers, farm workers, and
migrant workers from outside
levels
of job security. They are traditionally difficult to organize and are least
likely to challenge any aspect of their employment for fear of losing their
job. For example, the Department of Health relies on “volunteer” lay
counsellors for crucial aspects of the state’s HIV testing and treatment
programme. Although they meet all the
criteria developed by the
Proposals to amend labour legislation
8.10
At present, it appears that there is some
pressure to make amendments to our labour law framework to ‘encourage smaller
employers to hire more workers’ by relaxing our disciplinary procedures.
8.11
These proposals include introducing a 6 to 12
month qualifying period during which the LRA will not apply; relaxing fair
procedure protections for workers who are disciplined or dismissed; and
deleting the provisions related to unfair labour practices.
8.12
If these proposed amendments become law,
they are likely to have a disproportionately harsh effect on workers living
with HIV. Such workers already suffer high levels of discrimination and have
little effective access to legal protections due to ignorance of legal remedies
or fear. Such amendments would make their position significantly worse.
EXAMPLE
A worker in a
8.13
On the other hand, proposals by workers’
organizations like COSATU to challenge the vulnerability of casualised or
vulnerable workers by, for example, increased regulation of labour brokers, and
increasing funding for bargaining councils to resolve disputes, will strengthen
the position of vulnerable workers.
9
Indirect
HIV testing
9.1
This section may
be supplemented with a verbal input.
9.2
In the early
1990s, widespread mandatory and routine employment related HIV testing led to increased
fear, ignorance and non-disclosure in the workplace.
9.3
In 1998
government sought to put an end to this practice by passing section 7 (2) of
the EEA. The section makes it clear that HIV testing in the workplace for the
purposes of appointment, promotion, transfer, etc and which is done at the
request of the employer, is only permissible under certain circumstances. The
section specifically makes it a legal requirement to approach the labour court
for authorisation to conduct such testing.
9.4
Given this provision, and a literal
interpretation of it by many employers, it has come to our attention that many
job applicants are now required to provide several laboratory blood test
results including a CD4 count and/or a viral load test.
9.5
Both CD4 counts
and viral load tests are specifically used to indicate the clinical progression
of HIV in patients living with HIV. There is simply no other medical reason why
these tests would be required and are being performed knowingly by certain
employers to establish a persons HIV status. Requesting and performing such
tests is against the spirit of the EEA.
9.6
For this reason,
we request that the committee specifically address in its recommendations to
the legislative drafters, that the penalties for violating section 7(2) are
strengthened.
10
Recommendations
Given
the submissions above, the ALP proposes the following:
1. Government,
which committed itself to a joint Nedlac task team on implementing the National
Strategic Plan on HIV/AIDS 2007-2011 in workplaces, should specifically commit
to combining resources and taking collective action to address the HIV epidemic
through:
a. Education
programmes on HIV prevention and testing
b. A
universal roll-out of ARV treatment services, including PEP, PMTCT and chronic
ARV treatment
c. Programmes
to eliminate HIV-related stigma and discrimination
d. Programmes
to mitigate the socio-economic impact of the HIV epidemic.
2. As
outlined above, the adoption and proper implementation of HIV workplace
policies is important for ensuring access to education, testing, medical
treatment, and prevention of discrimination in the workplace. However, the current system of voluntary
implementation and evaluation is having only limited success, particularly with
regard to small and medium businesses.
We therefore propose that HIV workplace policies should become a legal
requirement, and appropriate mechanisms introduced to monitor the adoption and
implementation of such policies.
a. This
would require an amendment to the EEA, but the provisions for monitoring should
be structured in such a way that they are not onerous or cumbersome for smaller
businesses.
b. The
amendment to the Act could simply provide that all employers should have a
policy in place, based on the Code of Good Practice, but with flexibility to
amend the guidelines, in consultation with employees, to be appropriate to the
particular workplace in question.
c. There
are several possible mechanisms for the monitoring of the provisions, and
discussions between all stakeholders on the most appropriate mechanism are
necessary.
The
possibilities include:
·
Requiring workplaces to report on the
implementation of HIV/AIDS policies.
·
Large corporations, para-statals and
government department could make an HIV workplace programme a procurement
requirement
·
Monitoring through Bargaining Councils
·
Monitoring by SANAC in terms of the
proposed NEDLAC 2007 framework agreement
·
Government could co-ordinate a database
covering who has programmes, lessons learnt, data and numbers, but this would
require some central co-ordinating authority.
·
A combination of the above mechanisms.
3. Strengthening
penalties in cases where employers are found to have violated the provisions of
the EEA relating to unfair discrimination (s7) as well as violating the
provisions related to HIV testing. In other words, where an employer is found
to have conducted indirect HIV testing, it must be heavily penalised
particularly because such practices go against the grain of the EEA.
4. The
Legal Aid Board (LAB) has recognised the importance of extending its capacity
to provide assistance for civil litigation matters including labour matters,
but its efforts are being hampered by its funding situation. We call on the
committee to ensure that increased funding is made available to the Legal Aid
Board for labour matters that involve unfair discrimination, including acting
in cases of farm and domestic workers.
5. We
support COSATU’s proposals with regard to amendments to the labour law to
provide increased protection of vulnerable categories of employees including
employees living with HIV/AIDS.
Ends