The Department of Labour (DOL) reported on improved performance in reaching targets over 2017/18 and overall performance was 80%.
Members asked why about the poor 56% performance in inspection services, how DOL achieved all its indicators in the Public Employment Services programme but there is a lack of personnel in the department, for irregular and wasteful expenditure per programme, why the vacancy rate is a concern and the timeframe for filling of vacancies, whose responsibility it is to set the targets of the department, why DOL does not train and employ more inspectors, and what the turnaround time is in dealing with the DG reviews.
The Supported Employment Enterprises (SEE) indicated a 60% performance in 2017/18. Its mandate is to provide employment opportunities to persons with disabilities. This specific target was not achieved because of the sluggish economic environment and the inability of SEE to be able to secure work from various government departments so as to create employment for persons with disabilities. The non-achievement on its radio campaigns target was due to some administrative issues related to the Government Communication Information System (GCIS).
The Unemployment Insurance Fund (UIF) Commissioner highlighted where UIF did not achieve its targets noting the overall performance was 58%.
The National Economic Development and Labour Council (NEDLAC) overall annual performance for 2017/18 was 89%. The Portfolio Committee questioned its qualified audit opinion and asked about an audit action plan. A question was asked about the NEDLAC stance towards the South African Federation of Trade Unions (SAFTU).
In questioning the Department and its three entities, Members focused on irregular, fruitless and wasteful expenditure, people living with disabilities, pricing models, training opportunities, unemployment rate, and corruption by employees.
Labour Department Annual Performance 2017/18
Ms Marsha Bronkhorst, DOL Chief Operations Officer (COO), gave a summary presentation of the Annual Report tabled on 10 September 2018, noting performance for each quarter per programme and the overall performance. There was a constant increase in their performance:
53% Quarter 1 / 56% Quarter 2 / 71% Quarter 3 / 80% Quarter 4.
The performance of two programmes had a negative influence on DOL performance bringing it down to 60%.The impact is as follows:
Labour policy and industrial relations 38% throughout the year
Administration 75% throughout the year
Inspection and Enforcement Services 50% throughout the year
Public Employment Services (PES) 100% throughout the year
The Chairperson said he is worried that DOL has a responsibility to create and to try to retain jobs because people must be in employment. The department itself has vacancies so people are denied job opportunities and people are not employed. That is a big concern and means something is not right.
One will accept that there are internal promotions, but this must be done strategically and in a planned manner. DOL is creating unemployment because of the funded posts that have not been filled and that also means service delivery is hindered by people who are supposed to occupy those positions. The unintended consequence is postponement of service delivery.
Mr D America (DA) asked why DOL has a non-achievement in inspection services because 56% is very low for that indicator. What are the underlying reasons for this? Is it possible to achieve those indicators with the lack of personnel or inspectors in DOL? He asked how DOL achieved all of its indicators in the public employment services programme but there is a lack of personnel in DOL. It is disconcerting for the Committee to note that DOL labour policy and industrial relations programme spent 98% of its budget and yet achieved 38% of its outcomes. What has DOL done to address this gross mismatch between expenditure and achievement of targets? He asked about irregular and wasteful expenditure per programme.
Ms L Theko (ANC) was concerned about the indicators that have not been achieved and the unfilled funded vacancies. She asked the timeframe on the filling of vacancies, and what the challenges are to fill them.
Mr M Bagraim (DA) asked whose responsibility it is to set the DOL targets because they should perhaps consider setting the targets outside of DOL. It is laudable to promote internally within DOL, but what is concerning is the gaps at the lower levels that are then being created. His concern is about the lack of money in the inspectorate division, which is the most important division of DOL. Why does DOL not employ and train more inspectors in this division? He also noted the DOL vacancy rate.
Ms F Muthambi (ANC) asked for the lifespan of the DG’s review of prosecutions. What is the turnaround time in dealing with these reviews? What are the circumstances which led to the withdrawal of the Society for Family Health case in Slide 23 of the report?
Ms S van Schalkwyk (ANC) commended the improvement in performance. She asked what the current vacancy rate is and how many of those posts are funded. She asked for the current status of repeat offenders when it came to non-compliance by JSE listed companies. She insisted that DOL needs to put in strict measures to deal with non-complying companies. She asked if is there any strategy to deal with OHS inspections and compliance level at government buildings. What is DOL’s plan to deal with the irregular and wasteful expenditures which is a concern? On consequence management, there is a long list of cases. What is the position currently, are there any disciplinary procedures being conducted? Is there a tool or plan to recoup the money that has been fraudulently stolen by public officials? What is currently happening with the labour policy and industrial relations programme?
Mr W Madisha (COPE) said he can see there is improvement in DOL performance since the last time it presented, however capacity remains a concern. He asked if there are any developments to address institutional capacity in DOL and what timeframes are there to address this problem.
The Chairperson agreed with Mr Bagraim that the indicators should be set from outside DOL. The vacancy rate is a concern as already indicated by Members. It cannot be that DOL is the one that creates unemployment whereas it should create employment. There are funded positions within DOL which have not been filled for quite some time. Why DOL is not filling those positions? Are they waiting for their children to graduate in order to put them in those positions?
The Chairperson said the DOL Chief Financial Officer has produced credible financial statements, but the flouting of supply chain management rules must be fixed. DOL must utilize the internal audit committee correctly and ensure it is capacitated adequately to produce quality and credible reports.
Ms Bronkhorst replied about targets being set externally, saying that their targets are also scrutinised by Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation (DPME), as well as National Treasury. These two departments have huge comments about DOL targets and benchmarking which they have to comply with.
Ms Aggy Molloa, DOL DDG: Inspections and Enforcement branch, replied that areas of serious concern which impacted negatively on their performance include vacancies, poor planning and there was a new indicator 1.3. The bulk of their problem was centralized in Gauteng which is why the branch has put Gauteng under administration because there were a number of problems there. These problems range from poor planning and old unfilled vacancies which were supposed to be filled. However, they have made strides and looking at the performance of Quarter 1 2018/19 it shows that improvements have been made and they are currently at 75%. The new indicator 1.3 talks to their referral of cases for conciliation, which they performed at 35% instead of 85%. Also for some time they have run without secretary services personnel in three provinces (Eastern Cape, Western Cape, Northern Cape), which affected them quite negatively.
Ms Molloa replied that in total they have 1 700 inspectors for the entire country and that is nowhere near enough. For tools of trade, it is true there are not enough cars but laptops have been provided to inspectors so as to close the gap. They have linked with the Compensation Fund and UIF to try and build their capacity. She is happy to report that they are now in a position where they have auditors for Compensation Fund that will be able to link the payroll. They never had this in the past; it is something new which has been added to the inspectorate division of DOL.
Ms Molloa replied about the DG’s review that it is correct that section 43 and 44 of the Act does empower the DG to refer non-compliance and repeat offenders to court in terms of employment equity, particularly around section 20 and 21, which is the straight referral to court. When they say litigation is pending it is not from the DOL side. They send the case to Labour Court and it is pending there and they do not know how long it will take because it is out of their hands.
Ms Molloa replied about the case that was withdrawn, saying there are instances where cases are withdrawn when the parties agree to settle out of court or where more information is needed by the court.
Ms Molloa replied about government building inspection, saying they have about 170 OHS inspectors. They are in the process of trying to get more inspectors, also with the help of the Compensation Fund because all OHS inspectors inherently are the preventative arm of the Compensation Fund. They have done quite extensive ground work and they are likely to get about 500 OHS inspectors but it remains to be seen how long it would take. That will boost capacity in the medium to long term. But in the short term they have multi-sectoral stakeholder relations which will be linked to the Department of Public Works as the custodian of government buildings because there are lot of problems in that area.
Ms Molloa replied about the three indicators in the Northern Cape saying this is because during that quarter there were no other incidents.
Mr Sam Marotoba, DDG Public Employment Services: DOL, replied about the vacancy rate which led to underspending. This was caused by a time issue. From the time they were allocated the budget they applied for in the previous year to the approval of the next upliftment and the advertising of positions, they could not bring them in the same period. But Members will be comforted that Treasury understood that process and DOL has retained that funding and there has been significant progress in the filling of the 93 new positions created. They have managed to move on 62 and the remainder, except for 9 positions, they have done interviews. People are being notified and some will start in November 2018 and others in January next year.
Mr Marotoba replied to the question of more achievement with less expenditure and referred to Public Employment Services (PES) achieving 100% with an expenditure of 86.3%. This could be attributed to a number of things. Members should recall that with the budget cuts they were asked to do a number of things. Firstly, their indicators were SMART and were set by the DPME and Treasury. Secondly, of the 6 indicators of DOL in the Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF), three are from the PES overall. Thirdly, they have improved their plan within the branch, they have introduced IT system changes which are not a friend to the IT person sitting over there. They fight a lot but this was for the good of DOL to ensure that they are now able to service more people with the fewer staff. They have introduced serious changes in their workflow. They have embarked on training their staff, and reviewed performance agreements. He has got into trouble with the unions because the unions felt that the targets DOL was setting were unrealistic. Nonetheless they have managed to agree even though there is some dissatisfaction. They are also embarking on a placement strategy which involves a deal between management and staff on the kind of support measures they need and the resources that the staff need to be able to deliver more.
Mr Marotoba said going forward amongst the staff there is an appreciation that with additional staff they seriously need to improve the quality of their counselling services and placement statistics. But also there is an appreciation that they need to secure the employer’s confidence and reduce the costs of recruitment, offer them quality service, improve the response rate and provide services free so that it becomes the preferred user by employers when it came to free public employment services. Next year they will have an opportunity to set the strategic targets for next five years. However, Members know with elections coming things change and hopefully Members will also influence the targets next year.
Mr Bheki Maduna, DOL Chief Financial Officer, replied to the question about irregular, fruitless and wasteful expenditure per programme. Unfortunately the format of the Annual Report does not allow them to go into such detail per programme. However, the irregular expenditure is in note number 23 of the financial statements on page 193 of the Annual Report. The fruitless and wasteful expenditure is in note number 24. Basically the main causes of the fruitless and wasteful expenditure are departmental vehicles damaged through accidents by travelling officials and for which they have to pay third party claims.
Mr Maduna replied about the 98% spending in the labour policy and industrial relations (LP&IR) programme saying that on page 157 of the Annual Report it indicated that out of DOL budget of R3bn, almost R1bn goes to LP&IR with R864m going to CCMA and R31m to NEDLAC. That leaves LP&IR with less than R100m to cover its expenses.
Ms Bahumi Matebesi, DDG Corporate Services: DOL, gave background to the vacancy rate, saying they had 204 internal promotions from March to September 2018 and also 154 employees left DOL. Therefore, the vacancy rate is a moving target and it becomes a little dicey to try to get to grips with it. Currently, the vacancy rate is at 11.2% and they are comparing this with the previous month where it was 12.2%. The biggest vacancy rate was in Gauteng on the Compensation Fund/UIF due to the new programme for the employer audit.
The Chairperson said that what is required is that the DG, Commissioners and DDGs must develop the capacity to take correct unpopular decisions in DOL. The Committee does have the power to recommend for the review of departmental positions. The CFO must have his system right so that all the required documents are kept safe and recorded so that even if they get lost, they are available. The internal audit and the audit committee should be respected so as to implement what they are recommending which is why they have been established.
Supported Employment Enterprises 2017/18 Annual Report
Mr Silumnko Nondwangu, SEE CEO, noted the 60% performance of SEE in 2017/18. Its core mandate is to provide employment opportunities to persons with disabilities. This target was not achieved because of the sluggish economic environment and the inability of SEE to secure work from government departments so as to create employment for persons with disabilities. It has been very difficult to secure contracts from government departments hence this target has not been achieved.
The radio campaigns targets were not achieved due to some administrative issues related to the Government Communication Information System (GCIS).
He outlined the two audit findings that dealt with the difference between the listing and the report on “Number of persons with disabilities provided with employment” indicator and that there was no alignment between the annual performance plan, strategic plan and the budget in 2017/18.
Mr Nondwangu said management accepted the first finding, even though the final reported figure was accurate and had adequate support. Controls before year end were improved and as a result the Q4 report reported the correct number of 85 additional persons with disabilities employed – only Q3 had to be adjusted. On the second finding, management agreed and it will ensure that the budget is linked with the annual performance plan as per National Treasury guidelines.
Ms Muthambi asked for clarity on irregular and wasteful expenditure at SEE, which is a contravention of Treasury regulations. She asked for a detailed outline on the irregular expenditure
Mr Bagraim welcomed the good report from SEE. However, he felt that 3% of the staff supported by SEE should be employed in the private sector. SEE needs to facilitate training of disabled staff in the private sector.
Ms Van Schalkwyk said the report was good but she is worried about the SEE pricing model and it is a concern because there is no recovery plan in terms of its revenue. She asked if there is a plan for facilitating training opportunities for workers that will be absorbed in the private sector.
She asked if there is consequence management that is being applied by SEE for the irregular and wasteful expenditure. Are there any disciplinary processes that are taking place against any alleged offender?
The Chairperson appreciated the SEE audit outcomes. He asked what the SEE core mandate is for people living with disabilities.
Mr Nondwangu replied the SEE core mandate is both commercial and pursuing social justice. They can only achieve the social imperative of employing into SEE more persons with disabilities if government departments translate their commitment to SEE by placing orders for hospital linen, for school furniture, for office furniture with SEE. And that commitment has not been translated into action for many government departments such as Department of Public Works and others. Thus it remains a struggle for SEE to find work and pursue to its logical conclusion the social imperative of providing employment opportunities for persons with disabilities.
Mr Nondwangu replied about the pricing model that given the fact that SEE is subsidised, appraised and regulated by Treasury, it must submit a pricing model to Treasury which must be approved by Treasury. To generate income and ensure there is payment by clients, SEE had a down payment policy for every client that places an order of 60% deposit. There were few clients that paid the deposit in the past. But for the last few years in order to ensure financial liquidity, SEE now has a firm policy of 50% down payment.
Mr Nondwangu replied about facilitating training opportunities for workers, saying there are thoughts of establishing what they define as a “centre of excellence” in SEE where they will say to the private sector here they are with trained, skilled personnel for wood crafting, steel, etc. They are a centre of excellence and therefore they will become a repository for the private sector and provide it with skilled personnel. But this support process is still in the pipeline and is a thinking process for SEE.
Mr Nondwangu replied about consequence management that they have done an investigation on the irregular expenditure with the sole intention of ensuring that those responsible are held accountable. That investigation is currently underway.
The Chairperson thanked Mr Nondwangu for his responses. He was present when they were tackling DOL. As much as SEE has a good audit outcome and thus they should not penetrate that much because it is part of the sector that has done well; however, the actual performance resulting in service delivery is not done and Mr Nondwangu is saying it is outside of his control.
Therefore they should not celebrate that SEE is “performing” forgetting the actual outcomes they need to see which are far for being reached. It is important that SEE is assisted by DOL to find ways of ensuring that that good financial discipline and prudence is also translated into performance on the ground. When performance is not delivered on the ground, it makes the lives of politicians difficult to explain this. SEE must look at its value chain, identify all the gaps and close them. When the Committee meets with SEE around May 2019, its strategic plan must be informed by such actions.
UIF 2017/18 Annual Report
Mr Teboho Maruping, UIF Commissioner, assumed that Members had been furnished with the report earlier and in the interest of time he said he would zoom into only the important areas of the report.
The Chairperson said this was a progressive approach as it is after 12 pm and they need to finish on time.
Mr Maruping noted that their performance was audited by their internal audit and the Auditor General, which both reached the same conclusion in terms of their performance. This is to give the Committee comfort that when they prepare their quarterly reports they refer them to the internal audit to close any gaps that might be raised (slides 9 to 13). Slide 16 reflects the UIF performance through the four quarters.
Slide 19 explains why in Quarter 1 they ended up with 58% performance. This is because for the past couple of years they kept their turnaround time at 5 weeks, which took 35 days to process a claim and all of the claims were condensed into one claim area. Last year they specified their claims into three areas: Unemployment Benefits; In-service Benefits; Cash Benefits. The shift in how they process claims is that they moved 35 days to 15 days for unemployment benefits because they needed to provide that service more quickly. They were aware that this might be a huge shift in how things are done at the UIF. They also changed in-service benefits to five days and the cash benefits to 10 days.
Slide 22 shows that their unemployment benefit constitutes 80% of claims received by UIF. Gauteng, KwaZulu-Natal and Western Cape account for 60% of the claims received. Their focus is how they drive this change in these three provinces. In these provinces they need a new turnaround time to ensure they bring services to people as quickly as possible. These are the provinces that drive their main volumes.
Mr Maruping said that they may not have reached their turnaround time in these three indicators but already in Quarter 1 and 2 in this financial year they are already performing at 90% and meeting the targets which was unthinkable in the 2017/18 financial year.
The Chairperson said the UIF must not unconsciously turn itself into an investment company because it has been established to protect the vulnerable. While it is doing the investment, it must not forget its real mandate on the ground.
Mr Madisha asked how they addressed theft and corruption by some UIF employees.
Mr Madisha asked if there is any empirical evidence that the unemployment rate in South Africa is 26 to 27% because some people say it is 40% and going up.
Ms Muthambi asked if UIF has done a study to determine the number of complaints received about the UIF because it looks like the numbers of complaints it is receiving is increasing each year. She asked if the UIF does not think it will be proper to convert its labour centres into processing centres to minimise the numbers of complaints it receives.
Mr America asked for clarity about the investigations at Productivity SA. Is there any progress with those investigations?
Mr Maruping said that on whether or not they agree with the current unemployment rate, it is difficult to say but slide 42 of the report gives a breakdown of where they receive their services as UIF. The top five main reasons is contract expires which is about 38%. And that 38% is the reflection of unsustainable jobs the economy is creating where they found that a person is only employed for 6 months or 12 months and the contract ends. If they look at slide 48 they will see that 81% of claims they received it is unemployment claims which amounts to number of 379 000 claims per year. What is interesting is that they received most of their claims from agriculture with a reflection that there are people who work for different employers, one day for one employer and another day for another employer
Mr Maruping said on the question raised by Ms Muthambi he can confirm that when they appeared before the Committee 3 weeks ago in terms of the discussion on number of complaints received there has been a drastic reduction in the number of complaints against the UIF. They have since have about 5 complaints. Previously they had about 50 complaints and almost 100. But that number has been reduced substantially. What they have done is to instruct the internal audit team to go to labour centres to get the feel of what is going on. The next time the internal audit is invited by the Committee they will ask the team to present what it has picked up at the labour centres.
Mr Maruping said with respect to converting of their labour centres into processing centres they have started already last year. 70% of them have been converted and they are left with the 30% that they are hoping to convert during this year. The communication drive he is taking is something he is working on so as to communicate better.
Mr Maruping said on Productivity SA investigation there are 2 investigation that have been done on PSA. Phase 1 and phase 2 are completed. They are in a process of implementing the recommendations that were brought forth. Some of the recommendations required them to report to the police where they have found that there is money that was not accounted for and people are not there anymore, and some of the recommendations requires PSA to condone the irregularities that had transpired. They have a value of about R34m that cannot be accounted for. At this stage they have already paid R16m to PSA to enable it to pay for last year’s quarter 3 and quarter 4. They are busy now finalising the funding agreement so as to close some of the gaps that were picked up in the investigation that they could not resolve. The only thing that is left is the funding model where PSA is charging per person whereas it could charge the UIF or find other ways to charge UIF for the work it does. But the boards of both PSA and the UIF are meeting next week Thursday to try to iron out some of the issues so as to move on the same page all of them.
Mr Maruping said in terms of the training layoff that at the recent job summit the President made an announcement that they have a mouth to implement a different training layoff. He can confirm that whilst the job summit was happening, NEDLAC put together a training layoff scheme task committee. And one of its recommendation is to have single committee instead of 3 committees that considered applications that were coming through. Now they have a single committee that has been approved by the DG and they can send appointment letters to this committee. As he is speaking the committee is sitting to consider applications that have been received. And this the committee that will recommend either to him or the DG depending on the amount of applications per role. Therefore, the next time they will come and report to the Committee they’ll be reporting on how many applications have been approved and how much was paid.
NEDLAC 2017/18 Annual Report
Mr Madoda Vilakazi, Executive Director: NEDLAC thanked the Chairperson and Members for inviting them. He said that he will take that the report has been read by Members since it was submitted earlier to the Committee and will zoom in to the important slides.
Slide 7 explains the overall annual performance in 2017/18. There are three programmes and overall performance was: Administration 86%; Core Operations 90%; Constituency Capacity Building Funds 100%. Mr Vilakazi said the overall performance for the year is 89% and per quarter it was: 87% Quarter 1; 90% Quarter 2; 90% Quarter 3; and 94% Quarter 4. Certain targets are planned for a particular quarter, for example, in Administration they will have a target like achieving an unqualified audit as a target for Quarter 3, which may not appear in other quarters of the year. Slide 7 gives the summary of all the targets. Some of the targets could not be met because of funding constraints.
He noted some of the unachieved strategic objectives in some quarters such as effective engagement on draft policy and legislation within the framework of the NEDLAC Act, Constitution and Protocols. The strategic objective to promote social dialogue through communication, information and capacity building could not be achieved because of the revamping of their website that was not done in the first quarter to the extent they wanted to.
Ms Muthambi said the qualified audit opinion for NEDLAC is a big concern in terms of financial management. She asked NEDLAC to furnish a detailed audit action plan to the Committee to deal with consequence management at NEDLAC. She asked for details and proper breakdown of the irregular expenditure.
Mr Madisha said the NEDLAC achievement commitment is clearly defined in slide 31. If that achievement commitment is realised, then majority representation must play a role in NEDLAC. He referred to the recent Jobs Summit and asked why the South African Federation of Trade Unions (SAFTU) was not allowed to come in. NEDLAC should have invited SAFTU to play a role as an observer for the purposes of stability and taking the country forward.
Ms Theko said SAFTU was invited but rejected the invitation. She asked NEDLAC to communicate to Parliament on the way forward since the Job Summit.
Mr Madisha said Ms Theko is out of order and the question is not directed at her and he would not allow her to answer on behalf of NEDLAC.
The Chairperson said Members must calm down and focus on the matter they are dealing with.
Mr America noted that there are internal control inefficiencies in the audit findings. He asked if these had been stopped and if there was accountability at NEDLAC.
The Chairperson asked for an explanation of the R800 000 reflected in the last quarter of 2017/18.
Mr Vilakazi replied to a question by the Chairperson about slide 23 where there is a variance on goods and services of R8m. They received the R8m on the 29 March 2018, which is two days before the end of the financial year. They could not spend that money hence the variance of R8m.
Mr Vilakazi replied to a question about printing from Ms Muthambi that NEDLAC was not happy with the shoddy work they received and they are in consultation with the printers about the quality of the work. He said that they have developed an audit action plan and most of the activities there will come to fruition in this third quarter, and they will be forwarding that to the Committee via the Chairperson’s office. They will also give the details of the irregular expenditure and indicate the consequences because they have initiated processes to try and rectify the irregular expenditure.
For fruitless and wasteful expenditure, they have about R11 000, which is primarily due to NEDLAC participants, the social partners, who may missed their air flights. Obviously, they are going to embark on an investigation and take decisions and there will be consequences for wasteful expenditure.
Mr Vilakazi replied to Mr Madisha’s question of why they are not allowing SAFTU to be part of NEDLAC. SAFTU has applied to NEDLAC but obviously NEDLAC is guided by their protocol and rules of admission. There is only one requirement that SAFTU is not meeting at the moment but it will be meeting that requirement in six months, around April 2019. This requirement is that SAFTU must first produce two years’ of annual financial statements. And once that is done, the social partners will consider their application. On the invitation to NEDLAC activities such as the Job Summit, they had invited SAFTU to the Job Summit but unfortunately SAFTU declined for reasons they mostly articulated in the media and elsewhere.
Mr Vilakazi replied to Ms Theko that NEDLAC will be embarking on the way forward in terms of the agreement that was signed. They will be setting up what the President called a “Jobs Committee” which will be mainly based in the Monitoring and Evaluation committee. They will be producing quarterly reports and also monitoring those commitments made at Midrand.
Mr Vilakazi replied that they developed an audit action plan in response to the audit findings and submitted it to the AG for checking and they have adjusted it. The only thing remaining now is to ensure that they implement the action plan.
Mr Vilikazi replied about the internal control challenges, saying they are going to increase their visibility and also ensure they utilize to the fullest the internal auditors they have now appointed to ensure that they have internal controls. They are aware there were deficiencies and it should not have reached the stage of being an audit finding. The major reason for the qualified audit opinion was the irregular expenditure of R391 000 which NEDLAC had not included in the irregular expenditure item.
Mr Vilakazi assured the Committee that there will be consequences for those that have breached the controls and rules of the organisation.
Mr Mfanufikile Daza, NEDLAC CFO, replied about the R800 000 raised by the Chairperson that in slide 27 they were just flagging it and the expenditure of that money will be incurred in the next financial year.
The Chairperson thanked the DOL, SEE, UIF and NEDLAC delegations for their presentations and responses.
The meeting was adjourned.
- Supported Employment Enterprises: Adjusted 2017/18 SEE Annual Performance Report
- Department of Labour Annual: Impact Analysis Report APP 2017/18
- National Economic Development & Labour Council (NEDLAC): 2017-18 Financial Year
- Department of Labour: Annual Performance Report 2017/18
- UIF: Annual Performance Report: 2017/18 (Audited Performance Information)
Download as PDF
You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.
See detailed instructions for your browser here.