Labour Bills: summary of submissions

Meeting report

The Acting Chairperson welcomed a new Committee Member, Ms F Muthambi (ANC) and said she has a lot of knowledge and experience that will enrich the Committee.

The agenda for the meeting was adopted.

Summary of submissions received on the Labour Bills

Mr Sibongiseni Ngcobo, Content Adviser, said since most of the submissions was submitted late on Friday, he was only able to summarise 40 of the more than 60 submissions received. Most of the submissions are on the National Minimum Wage (NMW) Bill (21), followed by the Basic Conditions of Employment Amendment Bill (10), and the Labour Relations Amendment Bill (9). On the NMW, most organisations and individuals who have submitted wanted to know how the NMW was going to apply to those workers who are paid solely on commission. AgriSA proposed that the current minimum wage for farm workers be extended by two months so as to coincide with the introduction of the NMW.

The Acting Chairperson interjected asking for the summary to be printed and circulated to Members.

Mr Ngcobo said exemption was also a major concern raised in the submissions. Organisations suggested that it must not be difficult for exemption to be granted – the bill must provide for the ease of exemption so that job losses can be minimised. Majority of organisations supported the NMW with only a few who did not support the principle. For example, the submission by the Western Cape government and MEC for Economic Development and Tourism did not support the bill. They are of the view that it is going to result in unintended consequences, especially in the private sector; as well as cause job losses. Some organisations are of the view that R20 per hour must be increased. Others suggested it must be between R3 500 – R5 000 per month while some said it must be R6 000 per month. It was also proposed to strive for the living wage rather than a minimum wage.

A concern on the Basic Conditions of Employment Act centered on the  provision that if an employee worked for less than four hours in any day, he/she must be paid for four hours – it was not fair for employers to pay for the hours not worked.

The Acting Chairperson asked when the remaining submissions will be summarised.

Mr Ngcobo said the Labour Federation submitted jointly with the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU), Federation of Unions of South Africa (FEDUSA) and The National Council of Trade Unions (NACTU). The National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA) and the Free Market Foundation also submitted; the remaining submission will be included in the summary before oral submissions on Thursday.

The Acting Chairperson asked if the submissions were forwarded to Members as agreed in the previous meeting.

Mr Zolani Sakasa, Committee Secretary, said all 48 submissions were sent to Members.

Ms T Tongwane (ANC) asked if all 48 submissions were submitted on time.

Mr Sakasa said all submissions were on time, except for two that were submitted late and the Acting Chairperson will be consulted in that regard.  

Mr M Bagraim (DA) said submissions were sent Saturday night and it was not enough time to go through it all. The Committee must have enough time to analyse and to be able to understand the voluminous submissions. It will be wrong to hear oral submissions when the Committee has not actually analysed the submissions. Time was a problem taking into consideration well-researched and thought out submissions and trying to ask questions and compare submissions. Two days are not enough to hear the submissions and to cross-examine them. The Committee was doing a disservice to the people who have made these submissions. After oral submissions and cross examination, it might be useful to call the organisations and individuals back again. Unfortunately, the Committee wanted to give each organisation 15 minutes and how much time was the committee going to give Members to cross examine? Unless the Committee was going to work up to midnight each night, there will not be enough time. This was going to affect South Africa for the next 100 years and there was a need to test this properly before going ahead.

Mr D America (DA) said that the skeletal or abbreviated summary of the submissions the Committee heard from the Content Adviser are missing some of the important issues or elements captured in the submissions. After going through the submissions, important aspects are not captured in the summary. When the call went out for the public submissions in response to this legislation, it went out in the name of the Committee and called on the public and interested parties to submit their responses to the Committee Secretariat whom dutifully was supposed to distribute to the Members. It was a surprise to see that on the agenda there was an item the responses by the Department of Labour (DoL) on submissions. He asked where the Department fit in this particular process? The Committee has to first deal with these submissions and then give a particular response to it and then the Department will respond and not the other way round.

The Acting Chairperson said she received a letter from Mr P Moteka (EFF) and asked the Committee Secretary to read the letter. The letter reads as follows:

Re: Submissions of all stakeholders and the nation at large.

As the EFF, we are appealing to the Committee not to rush the process of public participation because many of the important stakeholders will be left out due to the short period that was allocated to finish this process. As I indicated earlier, three weeks was not enough. Unfortunately my plea was not considered as the ANC used its majority to push even if when it was not necessary. Now that the three weeks was finished we have only 10 submissions for such important legislation with far reaching implications. There are many organisations, some with limited resources who would like to make submissions but due to such a limited time, many are not able to. As noted on the submissions made at the end of Wednesday the 14th of March, many organisations will continue to submit. It is for this reason that the EFF would kindly request the Chairperson of the Committee in consultation with the Members of the Committee to extend the submission deadline to the 30th of March. The referred period will give Members of the committee enough time to consider the submissions. The EFF will write to the Speaker and the House Chair to make the same plea. We humbly do so because these two legislations have far reaching consequences and as such Parliament must ensure that the far reaching consultative process was undertaken. When we resume from recess in the second quarter, we will then deliberate meaningfully on all the submissions and move to finalise the matter on board. We owe it to workers, citizens and all affected stakeholders.

The Acting Chairperson said since he raised the same matter in the last meeting, the Committee referred the matter to previous engagements where the Committee engaged on the way forward in terms of the submission dates and how long the advert will go out. The Committee agreed that the advert will go out for three weeks but as a matter of fact, it went out for four weeks. Based on that and the agreement that was reached in the Committee, the Committee did not see it fit last week to extend that process any further.

Ms L Theko (ANC) said the other Members just want to delay the process and the EFF and the DA kept on claiming that the ANC was rushing the process. The Committee was not rushing the process. The process was there, the dates had been applied and the Committee was ready. The summary of the submissions had been presented and if there are any inputs on the summarised document by the Content Adviser, Members can contribute on what can be done.

Mr America said he did not want to debate, but to suggest that the DA wanted to delay the process was simply not true. What the DA has consistently stated since the beginning of the term was that there was a need for the process to be followed, for the process to be inclusive and all the issues be ventilated as the three pieces of legislation are going to alter the labour landscape fundamentally and the consequences will be felt for many years. He said that he had read about 80% of the submissions. Adding on the missing important elements in the summaries, the community component of the National Economic Development and Labour Council (NEDLAC) was part of this particular process that made the submission that deviated from the agreed process within NEDLAC and none of that was mentioned in the summary. Considering the substantial and substantive submissions, the Committee must be afforded the opportunity to engage with these submissions deeply so that Members will be in a position to follow the oral submissions and ask questions. It was not a delaying tactic; it is a question of process that if rushed, will have consequences as indicated by Mr Bagraim.

Mr B Martins (ANC) said that though the letter from the EFF was read to the Committee, in future, he suggested that letters must be circulated to the Members. On the proceedings of the day, Members have articulated their views in respect of documentation, time frames that are sufficient or not sufficient, but there was an agenda. The Committee must know exactly what was supposed to be done in terms of the agenda.

The Acting Chairperson said that taking into consideration what Mr Martins has said; the last agenda item was on the way-forward on the processing of submissions received on the Labour Bills before the Committee. With regards to the letter from Mr Moteka, she said the letter was received just before the meeting so it was difficult to distribute to the rest of the Members. The Acting Chairperson gave the department the opportunity to respond to the submissions received.

Mr Thobile Lamati, Director-General, DoL, said that the Department was at the mercy of the Committee. If the Committee takes a decision to go ahead with the hearing, the Department will be available throughout the process to respond to whatever was required.

Ms Muthambi said this was a process of Parliament and there was a need to deal with all the submissions presented before the Committee. The Committee was supposed to listen to all presentations. She applauded the position by the Department to be there throughout the process to answer any questions that might arise. She proposed to proceed to the item of the way forward, because it was important to decide on the approach on how the Committee was going to deal with the submissions on Thursday.

Mr Bagraim said he agreed with Ms Muthambi and strongly believe that the Department should be available in the process so that when the Committee wanted to test the submission, the Department will come in with their wisdom thereafter.

The Acting Chairperson suggested that the Committee proceed to the way forward on the legislation before the committee. She also reminded Members that public hearings will be on Thursday, 22 March. The amount of submissions will determine whether to go on to Friday or beyond. She asked for a specific number for those with oral submissions.

Mr Sakasa said that there are a total of 20 oral submissions. The Content Adviser will look at the other submissions to see whether they would want to do oral submissions.

Way forward

Mr Bagraim said he wanted to know how long the Committee was going to give each submission to present. He proposed to be given at least an hour to cross examining each oral submission. If the Committee was not going to allow that, it was also not allowing the oversight duty. A lot of submissions are coming and they are quite substantial.  He referred to an incident whereby he was cut short to ask three questions when he had 16 and said he was responded to, but not substantively. He requested more time and did not mind working on the public holiday or even the weekend to take submissions into cross examination.

The Acting Chairperson said the Committee was not going to meet on the public holiday as no one raised that matter before. She questioned why Mr Bagraim was now prepared to work on a public holiday when the opposition refused to work on a Monday. The weekend was fine as long as justice was done on the issue. The Committee was not yet sure how many will request oral submissions. She was expecting 5 to 10 minutes per presentation taking into consideration that some of those are individuals and will make minor inputs. She was not sure if one hour on the deliberation of one presentation will really be justified. Taking note of some of the past presentations, the Committee will just note the inputs or points of clarity without expansive deliberations. Five to 10 minutes could be sufficient for the Committee to allow the presentation to be made per individual or per organisation.

Mr Bagraim said to give 10 minutes to the presentation will be doing an absolute injustice. He said he cannot think of anything more ridiculous than that. Taking into consideration less than an hour to cross examine the reports, he asked why the Committee was even doing this process. He said it was not “Mickey Mouse” legislation - iIt is really important to the majority of the workforce.

Ms Theko said the Committee was in agreement that it was ready for the hearings and it was a matter of agreeing on the time allocation, but an hour was too much.

Ms Muthambi proposed that presenters highlighted key points and opportunity must be given for Members to interrogate and she proposed that 30 or 40 to 45 minutes suffice to that effect. Members will already know what the organisations or individuals will come and say since they will go through the submissions before oral presentations. It will be just few issues that may have been omitted that the organisations or individuals can rise during oral submissions. The shortest presentation can be 15 minutes, or a minimum of ten minutes.

Mr Bagraim said he will be happy if more time was given. He asked if the Committee failed to finish on Friday, what was proposed.

The Acting Chairperson said Mr Bagraim has already proposed and was prepared to work on Saturday and Sunday. It was a generous proposal and Members agreed that they will be available as a way forward. There was need for an application so that it will be granted.

Mr America said there was no consensus with what Mr Bagraim proposed and said and he is not available on the weekend.

The Acting Chairperson said if Mr America was not agreeing with his shadow minister, he must sortht out that issue with Mr Bagraim.

Mr Martins said there was a need to be a bit more serious. The Committee must work on Thursday and Friday and the conclusion on the work on Friday will determine what needed to be done.

The Chairperson said the hearings will proceed for the whole of Thursday and Friday. The way forward will be agreed upon after Friday and on Mr Bagraim’s on the weekend if there are further deliberations. Every member agreed except Mr America. The Committee Secretary will liaise with individual organisations and individuals.

Mr Bagraim asked for a recap of times and venues. He added that he wanted to be allocated 20 minutes or more to engage and cross examine each and every oral submission.

Mr Martins said that it cannot be correct that one Member can be allocated 20 minutes and other Members be allocated five or three minutes. If the Committee agreed that the engagement with the presenter will be 45 minutes, then at least the presenter should get 15 or 20 minutes and the rest should be for the Portfolio Committee. Members have to share whatever time was left. He urged Members to be serious.

The Acting Chairperson said this has been done in the past and said other Members also needed time to engage - not for one individual to have 20 minutes. Deliberations will be 20 minutes and presentation will be 15 to 20 minutes depending on how long it was. It will be unfair for one individual to take the whole 20 minutes.

Mr Bagraim said he did not agree saying it was not enough time for presentations, preparations and to properly examine.

The Acting Chairperson said it was agreed upon. Meetings will start at 9:30am for both Thursday and Friday. The venue will be Old Assembly Chamber.

The meeting was adjourned.