Basic Conditions of Employment Amendment Bill [B15-2012]; Labour Relations Amendment Bill [B16-2012]: public hearings Day 2

This premium content has been made freely available

Employment and Labour

24 July 2012
Chairperson: Mr E Nchabeleng (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

On the second day of public hearings on the Labour Relations Amendment Bill and the Basic Conditions of Employment Bill, the Committee heard submissions from Business Unity South Africa, the Retail Association, the Confederation of Associations in the Private Employment Sector, the Automotive Leather Company, the Federation of Unions in South Africa, the Mr Price Group, the Federation of African Professional Staffing Organisations, the International Confederation of Private Employment Agencies and the South African Society for Labour Law.

Business Unity South Africa was of the opinion that the New Growth Path job creation targets of Government would not be met if the Bills were enacted and stressed the need for a new Regulatory Impact Assessment to be undertaken.  The organisation had commissioned its own impact assessment, which focused on three key areas of concern.  BUSA did not support the provisions in the Labour Relations Amendment Bill concerning equal treatment, representation thresholds for minority unions, picketing rules applying to third parties, non-standard employment time periods and limitation and risks on restructuring and retrenchment.  The provisions in the Basic Conditions of Employment Amendment Bill concerning increase on actual rates of pay by sectoral determination and prohibited conduct were not supported.  The organisation estimated that 250,000 jobs would be lost if the Bills were enacted.  There was a need for temporary workers in the economy, it was necessary for legislation to promote flexibility and make it easier for businesses to operate.  There was much potential for litigation and an increased case load for the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration.  Concern over the extent of the disagreement between parties over many aspects of the Bills was expressed.

Members observed that the submission did not include suggestions or alternatives to improve the legislation.

The Retail Association was the largest employer in South Africa and employed the majority of part-time workers in the country.  The Association was of the opinion that the policy choices made in the proposed amendments would erode employment and growth within the retail sector, were contrary to international norms and trends and that there were better policy choices available.  The submission included comments on the provisions concerning equal treatment for part-time workers, industrial peace, democracy in the workplace, adjustments to actual pay and compliance and enforcement.  The impact of the proposed legislation on the retail sector and suggestions and alternatives for consideration were included.

Members remarked on the need for compromise, the demand by the electorate to change the legislation to deal with the exploitation of workers and ensuring fair treatment of temporary employees.  More information was requested on how the inspectorate function of the Department of Labour could be improved and what better policy options were available.

The Confederation of Associations in the Private Employment Sector was of the opinion that the proposed amendments to the labour legislation would have a negative impact on the national job creation plans.  Job creation was critical for South Africa but the country’s performance in this regard had been unsuccessful.  The enforcement of existing labour legislation was a key issue.  Data on the temporary employment sector and the extent of unemployment in South Africa were provided.  Changes in political and economic outlook, regulatory and policy uncertainty in key sectors of the economy, high turnover of executives and board members at key public sector and regulatory bodies and the vulnerability of the macro-economic environment to shocks as areas of concern were listed as areas of concern.  The submission included comment on unemployment and regulatory constraints, pressure on the manufacturing sector and the conditions and restrictions faced by temporary work agencies.  Information on temping trends and the conditions and restrictions applicable to temporary work agencies in other countries were provided.  Comment on the Bills was limited to the proposed amendments to section 198 of the LRA.

Members asked for more information on the source of the statistical data quoted in the submission.

The submission from the Automotive Leather Company was included in the presentation document submitted by the Confederation of Associations in the Private Employment Sector.  The submission focused on the potential negative impact of the proposed legislation on job creation and retention in the manufacturing sector.  The industry was reliant on contract workers provided by labour brokers and warned of the risk of losing jobs to other countries with more flexible regulatory environments.  The position of organised labour on the issue of labour broking was challenged, in particular the assertions that labour brokers did not create jobs, exploited workers, did not provide benefits and did not provide skills development opportunities to workers.  The impact of the proposed amendment to section 198 of the LRA on the automotive industry was examined.

Members disagreed with the presenters on the issue of labour broking and pointed out that there was considerable aversion to the practice from persons who had attended the public hearings on labour broking.

The Federation of Unions in South Africa suggested that the Employment Services Bill and the Employment Equity Act were considered in conjunction with the Bills.  Specific comments focused on the provisions concerning temporary work and fixed term contracts and the regulation of temporary employment services and labour brokers.  The major concern was the constitutionality and retrospective effects of the proposed amendments to section 188B of the LRA.  Other areas of concern were the proposed amendments to sections 198B, 21, 69(1) and 150(2) and the impact of the amendments on the CCMA.

Members asked for clarity on the suggestions concerning the employment period of six months specified in section 188B(4)(e) and on the suggested phrasing of definitions in the legislation.

The Mr Price Group commented on the proposed amendments to section 198C of the LRA and sections 68 and 69 of the BCEA.  Information on the utilisation of part-time employees by the company and the impact of the amendments concerning part-time employees was provided.  The company suggested the payment of a premium to part-time employees to compensate for the lack of benefits provided to permanent employees as an alternative.  The company suggested that the focus of the proposed legislation should be on building the capacity of the labour inspectorate, the promotion of mutual problem-solving, compulsory undertakings of compliance and the promotion of pre-court processes to resolve issues of compliance.

Members asked what percentage of temporary personnel were breadwinners and pointed out that part-time workers did the same work as permanent employees but did not receive equal remuneration.  More information on the interpretation of the phrase “no less favourable” in the legislation and the potential impact of the provisions on the cost of employment was requested.

The written submission from the Federation of African Professional Staffing Organisations included comment on the need to reduce unemployment, the issue of youth unemployment, enforcement of labour legislation, the impact of the proposed amendments on the national job creation targets, the need for flexibility in the labour market, the labour law review process and the need for effective regulation.  The initiatives of the organisation to promote professionalism in the private employment sector in South Africa were summarised.  The main focus of the submission was the international research conducted by the International Confederation of Private Employment Agencies.

The submission from the International Confederation of Private Employment Agencies included the outcomes of international research on employment conducted by a number of professional organisations, with particular emphasis on the temporary employment sector (i.e. agency work).  The contribution of the sector to labour flexibility, job creation, reduced unemployment and increased participation in the labour market was illustrated.  A comparison of the age groups of agency workers highlighted that nearly 50% of temporary workers in South Africa were under age 25.  Temporary employment was a stepping stone to permanent employment and reduced the participation in the illegal economy.  The impact of the regulatory environment on the contribution of the sector to the labour market was illustrated.  The submission did not include comment on the Bills.

Members questioned the application of research into employment and the regulation of the labour market in other countries to the South African scenario.  Members commented on appropriate levels of regulation and asked about the impact of low education levels on the ability to find employment.

The submission from the South African Society for Labour Law included detailed comment on the proposed amendments to the LRA and BCEA as well as specific recommendations and suggestions on how the legislation could be improved.  SASLAW suggested that the amendments to sections 145(5) and 145(6) of the LRA were deleted as the issues were better dealt with in the Rules of the Labour Courts.  The amendment to section 188B should be deleted as it was vulnerable to constitutional challenge.  The amendment to section 189A(2)(d) should be deleted as it defeated the overall object of section 189A.

Members observed that some of the changes suggested by SASLAW had been included in the latest versions of the Bills and asked what the recommended BCEA threshold in terms of section 115(2)(d) of the LRA should be.

Meeting report

The Chairperson welcomed Members, delegates and other interested parties to the second day of public hearings on the Labour Relations Amendment Bill (LRA) and the Basic Conditions of Employment Amendment Bill (BCEA).  Members were requested to limit their questions to obtaining clarity as there would be opportunity for debate on the issues at a later stage.

Submission from Business Unity South Africa (BUSA)
Mr Mthunzi Mdwaba, Business Representative, BUSA gave an overview of the current state of the global and local economy.  BUSA had expressed serious concern over the impact of the proposed legislation and had requested that a new Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) was done before the Bills were processed.  BUSA was dismayed when the response was that “RIA was not a bible”.  He stressed the importance of a RIA, particularly when the legislation concerned would have far-reaching consequences for the country.  He asked the Committee to ensure that the overall enforcement of labour legislation was improved.

Ms Vanessa Phala, Executive Director, BUSA presented the submission (see attached documents).

The submission included an introduction to BUSA.  A list of members of the organisation was provided.  The background to the submission listed the current challenges of a high unemployment rate (25%), poverty, inequality and the need to lower the cost of employment.  BUSA agreed that a fair, efficient industrial relations system was essential for economic growth.  It was essential that a good labour inspectorate was in place.  BUSA was of the opinion that the New Growth Path targets of Government would not be met if the Bills were enacted.

The previous RIA was compiled in 2010, before the current Bills were drafted.  BUSA had requested that a new RIA was undertaken.  The need to protect vulnerable workers was acknowledged but the Bills provided poor policy options and would have a negative impact, particularly on small businesses.  BUSA had commissioned a RIA, which was not comprehensive but considered the three key areas of concern.  Issues previously raised by BUSA were not taken into account when the current versions of the Bills were drafted. 

BUSA did not support the provisions in the LRA concerning equal treatment (sections 198 and 200), representation thresholds for minority unions (sections 21, 32 and 43), the picketing rules applying to third parties (section 69), non-standard employment time period (section 198) and limitation and risks on restructuring and retrenchment (sections 189 and 198A).  The provisions in the BCEA concerning increase on actual rates of pay by sectoral determination (section 55) and prohibited conduct (section 33) were not supported.

BUSA estimated that 250,000 jobs would be lost if the Bills were enacted.  There was a need for temporary workers in the economy and it was necessary for legislation to promote flexibility and make it easier for businesses to operate.  There was much potential for litigation and an increased case load for the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA).

There were many positive aspects of the proposed legislation but BUSA was concerned over the significant disagreement between parties over many aspects of the Bills.

The Chairperson gave the assurance that the Committee would ensure that any legislation would pass constitutional muster.

Ms L Makhubela-Mashele (ANC) observed that the submission from BUSA did not include suggestions or alternative proposals for the Committee to consider.

The Chairperson requested a copy of the RIA commissioned by BUSA.  (The RIA prepared by SBP, dated 11 July 2012 was provided to the Committee).

Mr Mdwaba advised that alternatives and suggestions would be provided by the members of BUSA.

Submission from the Retail Association (RA)
Ms Tanya Cohen, Director, RA presented the submission (see attached document). 

The Association was a member of BUSA and its submission was aligned with that of BUSA.  The organisation represented large national and specialist retailers operating in the wholesale and retail sector.  The retail sector was the largest employer in South Africa (22.8% of national employment) and employed the majority of part-time workers in the country.  The RA was of the opinion that the policy choices made in the proposed amendments would erode employment and growth within the retail sector, were contrary to international norms and trends and that there were better policy choices available.

The RA commented on the proposed amendments to the LRA concerning equal treatment for part-time workers and industrial peace and on the amendments to the BCEA concerning workplace democracy, adjustments to actual pay and compliance and enforcement.  The submission included the impact of the proposed legislation on the retail sector as well as suggestions and alternatives for consideration by the Committee.

Mr A Van der Westhuizen (DA) remarked on the need for compromises in legislation.  He asked if section 55 of the BCEA could be re-phrased to address the concerns raised about minimum wage increases.

Mr S Motau (DA) noted that the submission made reference to young Black people and asked if young Whites were excluded from the concerns raised by the RA.

Ms H Line (ANC) asked for an explanation of why the RA considered the employment period of six months to be too short for temporary workers to be given equal treatment.  She was aware that certain temporary employees had worked for a retailer for 25 years without enjoying the benefits granted to permanent employees.  She asked for more information on the suggestion that the inspectorate capacity of the Department of Labour (DOL) was increased.

Ms Makhubela-Mashele commented that the reason for amending existing labour legislation was to counter certain abusive practices and the exploitation of workers.  The electorate had requested Members of Parliament to change the laws and to close the existing gaps in the labour legislation.  Members had found that the most exploitation of workers occurred in the retail sector, where most temporary workers were provided by labour brokers.  The concerns raised in the submissions were noted but it must be borne in mind that Members had a mandate to change the current legislation to deal with exploitation, mushrooming labour brokering and abusive practices.

The Chairperson observed that the impression was created that temporary workers should not be treated equally but it must be taken into account that this category of workers also had rights.

Ms Cohen denied that the members of the RA were guilty of exploiting their workers.  The services of labour brokers were mainly utilised for distribution and for seasonal top-up of the staff complement.  Most part-time employees worked less than 45 hours per week.  Part-time employment was generally permanent, indefinite, of a long term nature and included proper benefits.  The reason for employing part-time workers is the need for flexibility as business conditions demanded a flexible labour force.  Labour brokers provided indirect employment to temporary contract workers.  The Association was aware of the gaps in the legislation, which were highlighted in the NEDLAC report.  BUSA supported many aspects of the proposed amendments.  The limitation of six months on temporary employment did not take into account the necessity for part-time employment.  Section 55 undermined the negotiation process if rights could be achieved through a legal process instead.

Mr Mdwaba said that the inspection challenges within the DOL were acknowledged.  However, the experience in the retail sector was positive and there were low levels of non-compliance with the sectoral determination.  The fear of exploitation was a fear rather than a reality.  Workers had rights, they were members of unions and the collective agreements reached with organised labour also benefited temporary workers.  The retail sector did provide protection for temporary workers against exploitation.  Labour broker employees were mostly deployed in distribution centres, which was a small part of operations.  Most workers in stores were employed directly by the retailer.

Ms Cohen explained that the inspectorate could be improved if inspectors assessed compliance at the store level, rather than at a national level.  For example, information on employment equity and Unemployment Insurance Fund (UIF) contributions were held at the retailer’s national offices and not at the stores.  Inspectors were not familiar with the applicable sectoral determination provisions, for example the allowable methods of payment for temporary workers.

The Chairperson asked the RA to forward more information on what better policy options were available to the Committee.

Submission from the Confederation of Associations in the Private Employment Sector (CAPES)
Mr Jonathan Goldberg, Chief Executive Officer presented the submission from CAPES (see attached document).

The submission included the background to the establishment of the organisation and its role in the private employment sector. CAPES was of the opinion that the proposed amendments to the labour legislation would have a negative impact on the national job creation plans.  Job creation was critical for South Africa but the country’s performance in this regard had been unsuccessful.  The enforcement of existing labour legislation was a key issue.  Data on the private employment sector and the extent of unemployment in South Africa were provided.

CAPES cited continued changes in political and economic outlook, regulatory and policy uncertainty in key sectors of the economy, high turnover of executives and board members at key public sector and regulatory bodies and the vulnerability of the macro-economic environment to shocks as areas of concern.  The submission included comment on unemployment and regulatory constraints, pressure on the manufacturing sector and the conditions and restrictions faced by temporary work agencies.  Information on temping trends and the conditions and restrictions applicable to temporary work agencies in other countries were provided.

Comment on the Bills was limited to the proposed amendments to section 198 of the LRA.

Submission from the Automotive Leather Company (ALC)
Mr Johannes Mangoejane, Executive Director, ALC presented the submission, which was included in the CAPES presentation document.

ALC was an automotive component manufacturer that supplied car manufacturers in Germany.  The company operated two plants in South Africa but a third plant was opened in Bulgaria rather than in South Africa in January 2012.  The company had identified potential conflict in the workplace as a result of the proposed deeming provisions in the legislation as a risk to losing jobs to other countries, e.g. Morocco.  The company averred that the lack of flexibility in the South African labour market had contributed to the decline in the contribution of the manufacturing sector to the gross domestic product (GDP) of the country.

The submission challenged the position of organised labour on the issue of labour broking.  The company made extensive use of contract workers provided by labour brokers.  Job creation was considered to be a team effort between government, organised labour, labour brokers, employers and bargaining councils.  A flexible labour force was necessary for the country to remain internationally competitive.  The assertion that labour brokers exploited workers, did not provide benefits and did not provide skills development opportunities to workers was challenged.

The impact of the imposition of the deeming proposal (section 198 of the LRA) on the automotive industry in particular was examined.

The Chairperson commented on the need to ensure that all labour brokers complied with labour legislation.

Mr A Williams (ANC) considered labour brokers to be “super-exploiters” of vulnerable workers.  He interpreted the statements made in the submission as threats but the Chairperson disagreed with this interpretation.

Ms Makhubela-Mashele advised that the Committee had conducted extensive public hearings on labour broking.  Most attendees had protested vociferously against labour brokers because of widespread exploitation of workers.  She conceded that not all labour brokers exploited their employees but those were few and far between.

Mr Van der Westhuizen asked if the sectoral determination applied to labour broker employees who worked in that particular sector.

Mr Motau asked if a more conducive regulatory environment was the reason why jobs were lost to other countries.

Mr K Manamela (ANC) asked what the source of the statistical data was that was quoted in the CAPES submission.  He said that the reality was that labour brokers existed because employers did not want to take responsibility for employing their workers and preferred to transfer that responsibility to a third party.  The objective was not to create jobs.  It was a fallacious assertion that the South African labour legislation was inflexible as companies continued to hire and fire workers at will. 

The Chairperson interrupted to remind Members not to engage in debate and to restrict their questions to obtain clarity.

Mr Manamela had a problem with the tone of the presentation and said that he wanted to respond to the challenges made in the submission.

The Chairperson observed that issues of human rights and adherence to conventions should also be included when comparing South Africa to other countries.

Mr Mangoejane responded that there was no intention of threatening the Committee in any way.  The intention was merely to place the issues concerning labour broking on the table.

Mr Goldberg disagreed that the temporary employment sector exploited workers.  Sectoral determinations and collective bargaining agreements were applicable and the sector was already subject to regulation.  He disagreed that there was general non-compliance with labour legislation and maintained that there was in fact a high degree of compliance.  He confirmed that the comparison between different countries included in the CAPES submission was based on common ground.  The source of the statistical data in the submission was the Topline survey conducted in 2010.

The Chairperson asked for more information on the Topline survey to be forwarded to the Committee.

Submission from the
Federation of Unions in South Africa (FEDUSA)
Mr Dennis George, General Secretary, FEDUSA introduced the submission to the Committee (see attached document). 

FEDUSA welcomed the amendments and had participated in the NEDLAC process.  The Federation suggested that the Employment Services Bill and the Employment Equity Act were considered in conjunction with the proposed amendments to the LRA and the BCEA.

Mr Leon Grobler, Chief Operating Officer, UASA presented FEDUSA’s specific comments on the Bills.  The comments focused on the provisions concerning temporary work and fixed term contracts and the regulation of temporary employment services and labour brokers. 

The major concerns with the proposed amendments to section 188B of the LRA were highlighted, in particular the constitutionality and retrospective effects of the provisions.  The submission examined the purpose and application of the LRA, the relevance of section 27 to the provisions in the Constitution concerning fundamental rights, the interpretation of the LRA in Labour Appeal Court rulings and the effects of the retrospective application of the provisions.  Other areas of concern were the proposed amendments to sections 198B, 21, 69(1) and 150(2) and the impact of the amendments on the CCMA.

Mr Williams asked if FEDUSA suggested that the period of employment of six months specified in section 188B(4)(e) was extended to 24 months or removed entirely.

Mr Grobler replied that the concerns were the possible interference with the provisions governing probationary periods and the potential for abuse.

Mr George agreed to provide additional input and suggestions on the definitions included in the legislation.  The Chairperson asked for the input to be forwarded to the committee within five days.

Submission from the Mr Price Group
Mr Steve Glendinning, Group HR Director, Mr Price Group introduced the submission from the Mr Price Group (see attached document).  The organisation was a member of the RA and supported the submission made by the Association.  The purpose of the submission was to demonstrate impact of the Bills on the retail sector.

Ms Melisa Quattrocchi, Employee Relations Specialist, Mr Price Group presented the comments concerning the proposed amendments to section 198C of the LRA and sections 68 and 69 of the BCEA.  Information on the utilisation of part-time employees by the Mr Price Group and the impact of the amendments concerning part-time employees on the organisation was provided.  Mr Price suggested the payment of a premium to part-time employees to compensate for the lack of benefits as an alternative.  A case study was included to demonstrate compliance under the current and the amended LRA.  The organisation suggested that the focus of the proposed legislation should be on building the capacity of the labour inspectorate, the promotion of mutual problem-solving, compulsory undertakings of compliance and the promotion of pre-court processes to resolve issues of compliance.

Mr Williams asked what percentage of temporary personnel were breadwinners.

Ms Makhubela-Mashele reacted to the statement in the submission that part-time workers were not considered to be vulnerable and should not be entitled to the same benefit as permanent employees.  Part-time workers did the same work as permanent employees but did not receive equal remuneration.   She reiterated that one of the reasons for the proposed amendments was to address the exploitation of temporary workers.  She felt that the company did not understand the extent of the vulnerability of part-time workers.

Mr Van der Westhuizen asked for clarity on the interpretation of the phrase “no less favourable” in the legislation and the potential impact of the provisions on the cost of employment.  He asked for a detailed legal interpretation of the relevant provisions to be forwarded to the Committee.

Ms Quattrocchi agreed to provide the additional information requested to the Committee.

Submission from the Federation of African Professional Staffing Organisations (APSO)
Ms Tabea Magodielo President, APSO introduced the submission from APSO (see attached document).

The written submission included comment on the need to reduce unemployment, the issue of youth unemployment, enforcement of labour legislation, the impact of the proposed amendments on the national job creation targets, the need for flexibility in the labour market, the labour law review process and the need for effective regulation.  APSO initiatives to promote professionalism in the private employment sector in South Africa were summarised.

The main focus of the submission from APSO was the international research conducted by the International Confederation of Private Employment Agencies.

Presentation by the International Confederation of Private Employment Agencies (CIETT)
Mr James Gribben, Economic Affairs Adviser, CIETT presented the submission (see attached document).

The submission dealt with the outcomes of international research on employment conducted by a number of professional organisations.  Particular emphasis was placed on the research on agency work (AW).  The contribution of the temporary employment sector to labour flexibility, job creation, reduced unemployment and increased participation in the labour market was illustrated.  A comparison of the age groups of agency workers highlighted that nearly 50% of temporary workers in South Africa were under age 25.  AW was a stepping stone to permanent employment and reduced the participation in the illegal economy and undeclared work.  The key dimensions of private employment services were summarised.  The impact of the regulatory environment on the contribution of the sector to the labour market was illustrated.

Ms Makhubela-Mashele regretted that Members did not have more time to study the results of the research included in the submission.  The conclusion appeared to be that a highly regulated labour market was not conducive to a thriving business environment.  She expected the business sector to take this position as it was mostly concerned with profit.  She questioned the relevance of research conducted in other countries as it did not take the historical context of the South African labour scenario into account.

Mr Motau observed that the research conducted in Belgium indicated that education played a significant role in the ability of people to find employment.  He wondered what the impact was of the large number of under-educated job-seekers in South Africa.

Mr Van der Westhuizen observed that the submission from CIETT emphasised the important role of AW in the labour market.  The submission did not include any comment on the proposed amendments to the labour legislation.

Ms Magodielo replied that APSO supported regulation but believed that over-regulation of the labour market would stunt the economy.  This position was also supported by BUSA and the RA.

Mr Gribben explained that 20 years of GDP tracking data was available in Belgium.  The research undertaken in South Africa indicated that this country followed the employment trends experienced by other countries.

The Chairperson remarked that legislation was formulated with good intention.  The labour market could not be allowed to be self-regulated and the question was whether the sector was under- or over-regulated.  The submissions heard to date indicated that the business sector was not opposed to regulation in general.

Mr Gribben said that CIETT advocated the appropriate regulation of the employment industry.  The degree of regulation varied from country to country and what was regarded as over-regulation in some countries could in fact be appropriate in others.  There were models on regulation that could be taken into consideration by the Committee.

Mr Nathi Nhleko, Director-General, Department of Labour (DOL) welcomed the input provided but more specific details of the problem areas would be useful.  He was not convinced that the international research could be applied to South Africa without reservation.

Submission from the South African Society for Labour Law (SASLAW)
Mr Hermann Nieuwoudt presented the submission from SASLAW (see attached document).

The submission included detailed comment on the proposed amendments to the LRA and BCEA as well as recommendations and suggestions on how the legislation could be improved.  SASLAW suggested that the amendments to sections 145(5) and 145(6) of the LRA were deleted as the issues were better dealt with in the Rules of the Labour Courts.  The amendment to section 188B should be deleted as it was vulnerable to constitutional challenge.  The amendment to section 189A(2)(d) should be deleted as it defeated the overall object of section 189A.

Mr Van der Westhuizen observed that some of the changes suggested by SASLAW had been included in the latest versions of the Bills.  He suggested that SASLAW checked whether or not its proposals had been accommodated.

Mr Motau welcomed the inclusion of specific suggestions in the submission from SASLAW.  He asked what the recommended BCEA threshold in terms of section 115(2)(d) of the LRA was.

Mr Nieuwoudt agreed to check if the recommended changes had been incorporated in the latest versions of the Bills.  The recommendation was that the BCEA threshold referred to in section 115 of the LRA be reduced from R170,000 p.a. to between R60,000 and R80,000 p.a.

The Chairperson thanked the presenters and all other participants of the proceedings for the input provided.  The public hearings would continue on Tuesday, 31 July 2012.

The meeting was adjourned.


Present

  • We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting
Share this page: