Accessing Workplaces for Unannounced Oversight Visits: legal opinion; DoL Update on Western Cape & KZN oversight recommendations; DoL Budget approval

This premium content has been made freely available

Labour

17 May 2017
Chairperson: Ms L Yengeni (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

Apologies were received from the Director General and Deputy Director General inspection and enforcement services

The Department briefed the Committee on the Western Cape oversight visit on 22-24 March 2017. The Committee noted with concern, the absence of the Chief inspector of KwaZulu-Natal and the Chief Director Provincial Operations. The Committee advised the Department to take their accountability to the Committee seriously and plan early in advance so as to overcome any potential logistical challenges.

The Committee visited five companies: Trade Call Investment Apparel, Romatex, Gerli Clothing, Abagold farm and De Tuin farm in Porterville. The oversight inspection focused on the factories’ occupation Health and Safety and their compliance with the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Deceases Act.

The inspection noted the lack of ablution and eating facilities at the farms as a common concern at the facilities visited. Notices were issued for non-compliance, which will subsequently be followed up as per the respective notices given to each company. All employers however, had complied with the Unemployment Insurance Act and the  Act and the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act.

Committee Members noted that the inspection extended to matters covered under the mandate of the Bargaining Council and proposed that future oversight visits should have a representative from the Council present.

It was also noted that most of the companies inspected appeared aware of the Committee’s intended visit and recommended that the Department should find out who was informing the companies in advance as this compromised the credibility of the Committee’s findings. It was also noted that the Committee shall take action against unplanned provincial inspections that compromised the Committee’s oversight visits. The Committee should be given all the provinces’ inspection programmes so as to be aware of any prior planned inspections on companies in each province.

It was noted with concern and displeasure how the Members of Parliament were humiliated at Gerli Clothing during the inspection. Committee members were denied entry into the premises despite introducing themselves as inspectors. The inspectors, upon gaining entry into the premises, could only engage with the operational managers since the employer was the sole administrator of the factory and was absent.

The Department of Labour briefed the Committee on the oversight visits to KwaZulu-Natal on 28-31 March 2017, the oversight visits were conducted in Clairwood, Chatsworth, Newcastle, Isthebe and Isipingo. The visits focused on the compliance of clothing and textile companies with labour laws and took an integrated enforcement approach comprising of occupational Health and Safety inspectors, Bargaining Council Agents for Clothing and textile industry and for Leather industry and immigration officers from the Department of Home Affairs.

It was observed that the employers had been made aware of the intended visit, and in anticipation, they sent away the undocumented foreign labourers and unregistered employees in a bid to avoid being caught by law enforcement agencies. A total of 13 employers were inspected, with exception to one company, Quin Sheng, which could not be inspected due to a language barrier with the employers.  All companies visited were found to be non-compliant with the labour laws including the Occupation Health and Safety Regulations contraventions relating to Facility regulations, Environmental Regulations for Workplaces, General Safety Regulations , Electrical Insulation Regulation, Pressure Equipment Regulations, and General Administrative Regulations.

It was recommended that the Department should maintain statistics on the rate of incidents or accidents occurring due to those violations so as to assess the urgency and make appropriate intervention measures. It was also recommended that the Department should create measures to enforce labour laws against illegal immigrants working at the factories.

The National Inspector being not able to answer the committee on the issues raised, the Committee postponed the agenda item on KwaZulu-Natal to a later date, at the earliest convenient time, when the relevant officials would be available to respond to the issues raised.

On Accessing Workplaces during Unannounced Oversight Visits, the Committee had noted with concern how the Committee members had been treated at the Gerli Clothing Factory, and thereby sought legal opinion on which powers the Committee and the Department have in responding to a similar occurrence in the future. The Committee was however informed that, Members of Parliament do not have the power to conduct physical inspections, in person, in working premises without the consent of the owners.

The court in determining issues relating to exercise of public power looked to see whether there was a legitimate objective and whether rationality was exercised. The Constitutional Court, in deliberating on the exercise of public power, determined that Parliament or the Executive could not perform any function beyond that conferred upon them by law.

Parliament’s power was limited by the Constitution, Legislations such as the Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Parliament and Provincial Legislatures Act and rules. The Committee may call witnesses to appear and respond under oath. Under Chapter 10, Part A of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act, labour inspectors have the power to conduct inspections to enter the work places, that are not a home, and enforce compliance.

The Committee expressed concerns that summoning witnesses to give account of the situation may limit the accuracy of the information being provided to the Committee as they would have to rely on secondary information as opposed to getting the information directly. Also, in order for the Committee to adjudicate on the true position of a situation, it would have to visit the site and conduct an inspection.

It was noted that no company would be willing to pay for their employees to come to Parliament and this may cause an unnecessary expenditure for Parliament in catering for these costs. The Committee would not be able to conduct oversights on the occupational health and safety of the workers and the premises if the Committee only had summoning powers in conducting oversights. Further, no employer would be willing to allow entry to the Committee if they had contravened regulations and knew that they were under no legal obligation to allow entry. The law in its current state disarms the Committee in conducting its oversight role and deprives if of the opportunity to also see how well the labour inspectors work in investigating the contraventions.

It was proposed that, since the summoning power is not good enough, this issue should be taken up through a legislation process since it affects other Committees conducting an oversight function and that there should be a workshop on this matter so to inform members on the way forward.

The Draft Minutes dated 10 May 2017, were adopted with amendments.  The amendment was a typographical error on the first page where a Member had been marked present yet was absent with apologies. It was proposed that, in future, the minutes should be accompanied with the register of members so as to solve any discrepancies.

The Report on Budget Vote 28; Labour was adopted with amendments. The amendments were grammatical corrections made on page 1, page 2, page 5, item 2.1, page 7, page 10, page 14 and the conclusion of the report.

Meeting report

Department of Labour (DoL) on the Status Reports regarding the oversight visits to Western Cape
Mr Vuyo Mafata, Acting Director General (ADG) , DoL explained that the absence of the Chief Director Provincial Operations and Chief inspector of KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) was due to logistical challenges, the previous day, in flying them to Cape Town for the Committee meeting. Sections of the presentation would be handled by the National Chief Inspector. He said the Inspectorate Services of the Department work in accordance with various legislative frameworks and are required to enforce, including; The basic Conditions of Employment Act, and the Unemployment Insurance Act, the Unemployment Insurance Contributions Act, the Occupation Health and Safety (OHS) Act, the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases (COID) Act and the Labour Relations(LRA) Act. The Inspectorate operates, in exclusion of the Labour Relations Act of 1995 and the National Textile Bargaining Council Collective Agreement which have their own enforcement agents.

The Chairperson: welcomed the new ADG and expressed her concern on the absence of the KZN Inspector and the Chief Director as they were the most relevant people to answer the Committee’s questions and those who do the actual work. The Committee may not get all the answers from the National Chief Inspector since he only oversees the work of the inspectors. The delegation had been made aware of the meeting early enough and therefore the logistical challenges presented could not be accepted. The Department’s accountability to Parliament must be taken seriously and without excuses. The National Inspector may brief the Committee but in the event his answers are unsatisfactory, the relevant inspectors will have to be summoned to brief the Committee in person.

Mr David Esau, Chief Inspector, Western Cape, DoL: said  the inspection dates were on the 22 and the 24 March 2017. The Committee had visited the work places and engaged with both the employers and the employees in an effort to interrogate whether there was compliance with key legislations and how to improve the working conditions of vulnerable workers.

The Committee visited various companies from different sectors; from the textile industry; Trade Call Investment Apparel (TCI), Romatex and Gerli Clothing; from the agricultural sector: Abagold farm and De Tuin farm in Porterville. The inspection on the Clothing and textile companies focused on the Occupation Health and Safety and compliance with the Unemployment Insurance Act (UI Act) and the Compensation for occupational injuries and deceases Act.

The inspection noted the lack of ablution facilities and eating facilities in the firms as a common concern on the facilities visited. There were notices issued in sighted instances of non-compliance which will be subsequently followed up as per the respective notices given to each company. All employers however, had complied with the UI Act and the COID Act.

On the instances of Non-compliance, TCI was found in contravention of the General Safety Regulation (GSR) 2(1) by failing to conduct risk assessments on all ergonomic related risks and by failing to report reportable incidences to the office of the chief inspector. It was also in contravention of GSR 2(2) for failing to maintain a record of all inspections, tests and repairs for the boiler. Contravention notices were issued for each contravention with follow up inspections scheduled for 22 May 2017.

Romatex had been inspected, prior to the Committee’s oversight visit, on 12 January 2017 and was found to be in compliance. Gerli Clothing was found with electrical wiring issues and had to be closed upon being served with a prohibition notice for operating an unregistered boiler and not having an Electrical Certificate of compliance. The prohibition notice was later revoked upon the company being found in compliance on a subsequent visit.

Abagold had been inspected two weeks prior to the Committee’s oversight visit. It was served with several notices relating to ensuring that the workplace is properly ventilated, the facilities should be in good state of repair and to ensure that the health evaluation is carried out by an Occupational Health practitioner. It has until 10 May 2017 to ensure compliance.

De Tuin was served notices on the 30 March 2017 prohibiting the transportation of employees on trailers and tractors, ensuring that there is adequate protective gear issued and proper ablution and eating facilities. It has until the 30 May 2017 to ensure compliance. Notices were also served for irregular deductions on pay slips and the company had night work being performed without proper compensation. Written particulars of employment were to be provided to employees in line with the SD 13 for seasonal workers and the irregular deductions stop forthwith.

Discussion
Mr M Bagraim (DA): noted that the inspection concentrated much on the occupation health and safety of the facilities rather than on the industrial relations, which is covered by the Bargaining Council. He proposed that when the Committee does oversight visits which extend to matters under the prevue of the Bargaining Council, it should have a representative from the Council instead. The Department should inform the Committee on its planned inspections and indicate which type of inspectors they need. Most of the companies inspected during the Committee’s oversight visit fell under the prevue of the Bargaining Council and hence needed an inspector from the council to report authoritatively on the labour issues sighted.
He noted that during the Gerli Clothing oversight inspection, the company appeared aware of the Committee’s intention to visit. The Department should find out who was informing on the Committee’s planned visits. He also noted that the companies staff members were vulnerable and exposed and did not have pay slips.

Ms F Loliwe (ANC) asked for feedback regarding a company, which the Committee had visited previously, that had burglar bars at the front of the lift.

Mr I Ollis (DA): asked whether in Gerli clothing, the only thing the inspector found wrong who was the faulty electrical wiring and the unregistered boilers.

Ms S Van Schalkwyk (ANC) expressed concern regarding instances where that the Committee informs the provinces of their intention to conduct oversight visits on certain companies but the provinces immediately thereafter conduct their own inspections on the same companies that the Committee had already expressed its intention to visit. This compromises on the Committee’s findings.

The Chairperson reiterated this concern and stated that the Committee shall take action against deliberate inspection visits that compromise the Committee’s oversight visits. She proposed that the Committee should be given all the provinces’ inspection programmes so as to be aware of any prior planned inspections on companies in each province. She also expressed her displeasure with the instance where Members of Parliament were humiliated at Gerli Clothing.

Mr Esau said the Department was in discussions with the Secretary of the Bargaining Council to have the Council involved in the inspections so to have a comprehensive report of inspections conducted in the future. Regarding Gerli Clothing, the Department could not engage the employer prior to the visit since he had been hospitalised, however, the inspection proceeded as the company complied with the notices issued. There were also notices issued, to the elevator company, to remove the safety gate from the front of the lift. The Department has engaged the Bargaining Council to look into irregular deductions sighted on the company’s pay slips. Regarding the coinciding inspection visits with the oversight visits, most of the companies had requested for inspections earlier and therefore the sighted incidents were not deliberate but coincidental.

The Chairperson inquired whether the factory had any management personnel aside from the manager or if he was the only person who directs everything. She requested the Chief inspector to respond on the concern regarding the attitude of the management towards the Members of parliament.

Mr Esau explained that they were denied entry into the premises despite introducing themselves as inspectors and the management did not trust any person present at the site. Labour Inspectors have a right to enter such premises upon introducing themselves. Any subsequent denial of entry is a result of ignorance of the law. The inspectors, upon gaining entry into the premises, could only engage with the operational managers since the employer was the sole administrator of the factory and was absent.

The chairperson requested that the ADG should answer the Committee on whether in De Tuin, was an Unemployment Insurance Fund (UIF) Project, and if so, how it could have such problems under the oversight of the Department for such a long time without Department knowing or taking action.

Mr Mafata noted that the Department invests funds but does not get involved in the day to day running of the entities. However, in the future, the Department could review its investment policies so that there is compliance with relevant legislation.

The Chairperson said that the Department has a responsibility to ensure that the money spent on investments is safe guarded and is not compromised.

Department of Labour (DoL) on Status Reports regarding the oversight visits to KwaZulu-Natal (28-31 March 2017)
Mr Tibor Szana. CD, OHS: said the report focuses on the oversight visits’ outcome in Clairwood, Chatsworth, Newcastle, Isthebe and Isipingo. The visit was focused on the compliance of clothing and textile companies with labour laws. The inspection took an integrated enforcement approach comprising of Occupational Health and Safety inspectors, Bargaining Council Agents for Clothing and textile industry and for Leather industry and immigration officers from the Department of Home Affairs.

It was observed that the employers had been made aware of the intended visit, and in anticipation, they sent away the undocumented foreign labourers and unregistered employees in a bid to avoid being caught by law enforcement agencies. A total of 13 employers were visited and found non-compliant with the labour laws regarding prescribed minimum wages as well as the provisions of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1993.

Regarding the details of non-compliance, Jarna Trading Enterprise, a manufacturing clothing company, there were UI contraventions such as under-declarations of employees’ information with UIF and Occupation Health and Safety Regulations (OHS) contraventions relating to Facility regulations (FR), Environmental Regulations for Workplaces (ERW), General Safety Regulations (GSR), Electrical Insulation Regulation (EIR), Pressure Equipment Regulations (PER)and General Administrative Regulations (GAR).

2KG Investments, a manufacturing and textile company, was served notices for under declaration of employees’ information with UIF, General Admin Regulations, General safety regulation, ERW, Facility Regulations, Driven Machinery Regulations, Electrical Insulation Regulations. Prohibition notices were also issued prohibiting the use of unsafe electrical installations in the work place.

Stephlyn Clothing cc, a Clothing manufacturing company, was served notices for their UI declarations and payments not being up to date and contravention notices issued relating to GAR, ERW, GSR and FR section 17(1) relating to health inspectors being on site.

SOP Trading, a leather Manufacturing company, was served notices for their UI declarations and payments not being up to date and contravention notices issued relating to ERW, GSR, FR and the Hazardous Chemical Safety Regulation (HDFR).

Africa HK Manufacturing (Pty) Ltd (Colima Trade), a clothing manufacturing company was served notices for their UI declarations and payments not being up to date and contravention notices issued relating to DMR, ERW and GSR.

Sky Sheng, a clothing manufacturing company was served notices for their UI declarations and payments not being up to date and contravention notices issued relating to GSR, and also issued a prohibition notice for the use of an unsafe liquid petroleum gas (LP Gas) system/ installation and the non-conformity of the Gas supply manifold to the SANS code.

Produstar, clothing manufacturing company was served contravention notices relating to GSR, GAR, FR, ERW, PER and EIR.

The Top Dress Clothing, a clothing manufacturing company, was sighted to have under-declared its employees’ information with the UIF. It was served contravention notices relating to GSR, GAR, FR, ERW, PER and EIR and a prohibition notice from permitting dogs entering the working area and coming into contact with employees.

Qalakabusha Primary Workers Co-operative, a clothing manufacturing company, was served notices for their UI declarations and payments not being up to date and contravention notices issued relating to ERW, GSR, FR and EIR.

ZAIC Clothing (Nico Zhang Trading), a clothing manufacturing Company, was served a contravention notice relating to GSR and ERW. Knitwear International was severed with contravention notices relating to FR and ERW. Fashion River, was found to be in compliance with UI regulations but in contravention of FR, GSR, GAR, ERW and EIR.

Lastly, Angel Footwear Manufacturers cc, a leather manufacturing company, was sighted for under-declaring employees’ information with UIF and contravention notices served relating to FR, ERW, HCSR.

The provinces reported that one company, Quin Sheng could not be inspected due to a language barrier with the employers not being able to communicate in any of the official languages. However, inspectors will conduct follow up inspections in line with the relevant notices served and after the expiry of the 60-day statutory period.

Discussion
Mr I Ollis (DA): said the KZN inspection was conducted successfully and effectively in comparison to the Committee’s previous visits. The police had assisted in getting access to the premises while the Department of Home Affairs inspectors checked on the immigration status of the workers. He inquired whether the company, Quin Shing, will be inspected again and if interpreters will be needed.

Ms F Loliwe (ANC): asked what the Department was doing to alleviate the poor living conditions of some of the workers in the companies visited. she inquired how the company, Quin Shing, communicates with its employees since the management does not understand any of the official languages and how did the manager of the company get to his position as an employer yet he cannot speak or understand English or any other official language.

Mr T Rawula (EFF) noted that most companies inspected were in contravention of General Safety regulations and inquired whether the Department had statistics on the rate of incidents or accidents occurring due to those violations so as to assess the urgency and make appropriate intervention measures. He noted as well, that most companies had contravened the UIF’s declarations and payments, this may have, as a result, inconvenienced the victims who may have tried to recover their own UIFs. He inquired whether there was any recourse for the victims, against the employer, for the default. 
He also inquired whether it was the Department’s standard practice to conduct inspections with the assistance of the police or if it was due to the presence of the Members of Parliament. He also inquired whether the General Administrative Regulations (GAR) contravention included irregularities with salaries and wages. There was also no mention in the reports whether the inspected companies had any skills development programmes or if it was not an issue of interest during the inspection.

Ms S Van Schalkwyk (ANC) stated that the contravention notices were not clear enough on the specific contraventions and inquired whether most companies’ policy of ‘no work, no pay, under any circumstance’, had been addressed in the notices. She expressed concern with the sanitary conditions of the factories which as a result caused workers to fall sick and the management refuses to give them time off to seek medical attention.

Ms L Theko (ANC) asked the status of the inspections at provincial level and what the provinces are doing on their own in ensuring compliance.

Ms Van Schalkwyk noted the that there were instances, in some of the companies the Committee visited, whereby illegal immigrants working on the premises were asked to leave before the inspectors arrived and inquired whether the Department has measures in place to supplement the Committee’s unannounced oversight visits.

Ms T Tongwane (ANC): noted that there were some companies with designated times for toilet visits and enforced toilet registers as well. She inquired under which contravention such an issue was addressed.

The Chairperson inquired whether the National Inspector, on behalf of the absent KZN inspectors, was in a position to give accurate answers on issues raised by Members relating to the visits. The factory workers had given the Department two weeks to respond to their issues. She noted that the reports presented by the inspector were too general and lacked sufficient detail to inform the Committee on the issues and the way forward. The inspector should tell the Committee if he will be able to respond categorically on each of the issues raised otherwise the agenda item on KZN should be postponed to a later date when the inspectors would be available to answer on the issues raised.

Mr Szana said he was not in a position to answer the Committee on the issues raised.

The Chairperson stated that the KZN inspectors will be summoned at the earliest convenient time to respond on the issues raised and representatives of the Bargaining Council should also respond to the Committee on the issues raised that fell within their mandate.

Presentation by the Legal Advisor on Accessing Workplaces during Unannounced Oversight Visits
The Chairperson stated that due to the treatment Committee Members had received at the Gerli Clothing Factory, the Committee sought legal opinion on which powers the Committee and the Department has in the event of a recurrence of the same.

Mr Frank Jenkins, Legal Advisor, Parliament; informed the Committee that Members of Parliament do have the power to conduct physical inspections, in person, in working premises. However, such visits ought to have the consent of the owners. The court in determining issues relating to exercise of public power looked to see whether there was a legitimate objective and whether rationality was exercised. Exercise of public power is subject to the principle of legality as described in the case of Fedsure Life Assurance Ltd v Greater Johannesburg Transitional Metropolitan Council 1999 (1) SA374 (cc). the Constitutional Court determined that Parliament or the Executive could not perform any function beyond that conferred upon them by law.

Parliament’s power is conferred by the Constitution, Legislations such as the Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Parliament and Provincial Legislatures Act and rules. The Committee may call witnesses to appear and respond under oath. Under Chapter 10, Part A of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act, labour inspectors have the power to conduct inspections to enter the work places, that are not a home, and enforce compliance. Members cannot go, as members or as a Committee, to conduct inspections or conduct unannounced visits. They have the options of conducting inspections with the consent of the employers or summoning the employers to respond to the Committee, under oath.

Discussion
Mr Bagraim said it was important for the Committee to get legal opinion since it affected the Committee Members who had gone to the Gerli Clothing Factory. He requested legal opinion for the case where a person is conducting business from his home and an inspector wanted to conduct an inspection on the premises.

Ms Van Schalkwyk inquired whether it was acceptable for Members to accompany the labour inspectors.

The Chairperson noted that summoning witnesses to give account of the situation may limit the accuracy of the information being provided to the Committee as they would have to rely on secondary information as opposed to getting the information themselves. The Committee may summon employers from companies that the members have received complaints, however, in order for the Committee to adjudicate on the true position, it would have to visit the site and conduct an inspection.

Mr Jenkins noted that a private employer does not have an obligation under law to allow Members of Parliament to enter the premises. In the case of a business being run in a private home, there would have to be a Court Order authorising such an inspection or the owners’ consent.

Ms Loliwe inquired how the Committee could perform its constitutional mandate of oversight if the Committee cannot visit the premises.

Mr Ollis suggested that the Committee use the existing provisions of the law to manoeuvre their way in allowing the employers to consent to physical inspections since its highly unlikely employers would be willing to endure the inconvenience of travelling and answer questions before the Committee in the presence of the media.

The Chairperson, noted that the Committee’s present position denies them the opportunity to see exploitation being done. Summoning employees to parliament may not prove to be fruitful in the event that employees get intimidated to speak out against their employers.

Mr Rawula noted that no company would be willing to pay for their employees to come to Parliament and this may cause an unnecessary expenditure for Parliament in catering for these costs. He noted also that the Committee would not be able to conduct oversights on the occupational health and safety of the workers and the premises if the Committee only had summoning powers in conducting oversights. No employer would be willing to allow entry to a Committee if they had contravened regulations and knew that they were under no legal obligation to allow entry. He proposed that, since the summoning power is not good enough, this issue should be taken up through a legislation process since it affects other Committees conducting an oversight function. The law in its current state disarms the Committee in conducting its oversight role and depriving them the opportunity to also see how well the labour inspectors work in investigating the contraventions.

Ms Theko inquired how the Committee could conduct its oversight role without visiting the premises to see the reality on the ground.

Ms Loliwe informed the Committee that the Legal Advisor’s opinion has not barred the Committee to conduct its oversight role but only the Committee to conduct unannounced visits and force entry.

Mr Ollis inquired whether under the Basic conditions of Employment Act, the Committee Members could be interpreted as persons who may accompany the labour inspectors to assist them.

The Chairperson: stated that the Committee needs to workshop on this issue so as to get further information on the way forward. Any employer who knows that they are flouting the law, would not allow entry. The employees may be intimidated and there may be possibilities of collusion between labour inspectors and the managements.

Mr Jenkins said in order for the Committee to be sure if it could accompany the labour inspectors it should put it in legislation since the Members would be conducting an oversight and not really assisting the inspectors to conduct the inspection.

Report on Budget Vote 28; Labour
The Chairperson noted that no comments were sent to the Committee Secretary concerning the Report.

Mr Ollis said was in agreement with the report with exception to the conclusion of the report, where it read that all parties are in agreement with the approval of the budget. The DA cannot support the Budget until it has deliberated on it, in its caucus.

Ms Loliwe pointed out that the Committee would be meeting on the 24tMay 2017 yet the DA would be meeting after that. She asked on the way forward for the Committee

The Chairperson said Committee work cannot be dictated by the Members’ caucuses. The DA Members of the Committee had the Report well in advance but failed to seek approval from their caucus.

Ms Loliwe proposed a grammatical correction on page 1, and page 5 of the Report.

Mr D America (DA) proposed numerical corrections on page 2, page 5, item 2.1 and page 10 of the report.

Mr Ollis agreed with the proposed but noted that the DA together with all the other opposition parties would not vote for the budget in the event that his proposed correction on the conclusion was not addressed.

Ms Loliwe suggested that the Committee could engage the DA on its position on the last clause and find a wording that best accommodates the wishes of the DA party members.

Ms Van Schalkwyk proposed grammatical corrections on page 7 of the report so as to make the report clearer.

Ms Tongwane proposed a grammatical correction on page 14 of the report.

The Chairperson informed Members that the report is what was being adopted by the Committee as presented by the Department of Labour. The Budget will be adopted by Parliament.

The report was adopted with amendments.

Draft Minutes dated 10 May 2017
Ms Tongwane noted an error on the first page, she had been marked present yet she was absent with apologies. She proposed that the quorum minutes be corrected.

Ms Van Schalkwyk proposed the Committee make a resolution that the minutes should be accompanied with the register of members so as to solve any discrepancies.

The minutes were adopted with amendments

 

The meeting was adjourned.

Share this page: