Employment Equity Amendment Bill: public hearings day 2
Employment and Labour
14 April 2021
Chairperson: Ms M Dunjwa (ANC)
Video: PC Labour 14 April 2021
The Portfolio Committee on Employment and Labour met in a virtual sitting to receive oral presentations on the Employment Equity Amendment Bill from Solidarity, the South African Medical Device Industry Association (SAMED) and Agri Western Cape. The three entities presented similar concerns and recommendations on the Bill.
In its submission, Solidarity said the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) had found that the Employment Equity Act (EEA) was not constitutionally compliant, and that it violated the obligations imposed by the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. It expressed the view that the government’s failure to measure the impact of various affirmative action measures on the basis of need and disaggregated data -- especially the extent to which such measures advanced indigenous peoples and people with disabilities -- violated international law obligations. It said the implementation of special measures in the employment equity sphere was currently misaligned to the constitutional objective of achieving substantive equality. This amounted to rigid quotas and absolute barriers as opposed to flexible targets. Solidarity was concerned that this practice may inadvertently set the foundation for new patterns of future inequality and economic exclusion within and amongst vulnerable population groups. Due to the fact that designated groups were bluntly classified and data was insufficiently disaggregated, measures were not capable of being targeted at the most vulnerable groups in society, and could similarly not be designed to respond to new forms of discrimination, or compounded discrimination.
The SAHRC had noted that the requirement to consider regional demographics was sensible, given the uneven distribution of different population groups across South Africa. It was concerned that given the huge problem constituted by unemployment in South Africa, the legislative amendment and consequent implementation of affirmative action measures may provoke urban migration and thereby exacerbate existing spatial injustices. Solidarity recommended that the EEA be amended to target more nuanced groups on the basis of need, and that it should take into account social and economic indicators. It said the Bill allowed the Minister virtually unlimited powers to set targets for industries and sectors, and was concerned that this would lead to the creation of a state-controlled society, where the amount of freedom continually decreased for the alleged sake of promoting the common good.
Other entities that presented also believed that affirmative action plans had to be context sensitive. SAMED said that given the diversity within the medical devices sector, sub-targets would have to be set up per division. It emphasised that medical device companies could fall into vastly different categories and therefore face vastly different targets which the EEA needed to take into account.
Agri SA/WC expressed concern over all sectors being made aware of the consequences of non-compliance, and what would be considered reasonable grounds for this. The Committee heard that it could be impossible for producers in the farming and agri processing sectors to the ensure the equitable representation of suitably qualified people from designated groups at all occupational levels in the workforce, given the numerical targets that would be set. It suggested that section 27(4) be deleted from the Bill, as it believed that trying to engineer income levels at occupational levels would have unintended consequences and adversely affect employment opportunities and employment rates. It proposed that the Minister revert to the initial agreement that had been negotiated at the National Economic Development and Labour Council to consult with the relevant sector bodies when setting sector targets. All three entities shared similar sentiments that the imposition of “a one size fits all” target on a sector without proper and meaningful consultation would be unlikely to achieve positive results.
Members raised questions on how past racial imbalances could be redressed and wanted information on research done on affirmative action for companies in specific provinces. The Chairperson requested specific examples to aid the Committee in its deliberations on the Bill. Members questioned why some entities felt the set targets would be challenging to achieve by some sectors, and why regionally set targets were viewed as quotas by the organisations making oral submissions.
Oral submissions on the Employment Equity Amendment Bill would continue the following day.
Employment Equity Amendment Bill
Presentation by Solidarity
Mr Anton van der Bijl, Head: Solidarity Centre for Fair Labour Practices, said that on 12 July 2018, the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) had released its Equality Report 2017/18 with the sub-title, "Achieving substantive economic equality through rights-based radical socio-economic transformation in South Africa."
He drew attention to the following aspects of the Equality Report:
The SAHRC had found that the Employment Equity Act (EEA) was not constitutionally compliant, and that it violated the obligations imposed by:
- The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD); and
- The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD).
The executive summary records as one of the key findings of the Equality Report 74 that the Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998’s definition of “designated groups,” and South Africa’s system of data disaggregation, was not in compliance with constitutional or international law obligations.
Government’s failure to measure the impact of various affirmative action measures on the basis of need and disaggregated data, especially the extent to which such measures advance indigenous peoples and people with disabilities, violated international law obligations.
The implementation of special measures in the employment equity sphere was currently misaligned to the constitutional objective of achieving substantive equality, to the extent that implementation may amount to rigid quotas and absolute barriers, as opposed to flexible targets. This practice may inadvertently set the foundation for new patterns of future inequality and economic exclusion within and amongst vulnerable population groups.
Under the heading, "Targeted special measures based on need," it was questioned whether the EEA or its implementation was not leading to new imbalances, and noted that indigenous peoples (those whose ethnic descent may be from mixed race marriages) and linguistic or tribal minorities within the designated groups were not accommodated by the EEA.
Government’s approach, which objected to greater disaggregation of data, was said to be "problematic," because decisions based on insufficiently disaggregated data failed to target persons or categories of persons who had been disadvantaged by unfair discrimination, as required by the three-pronged test for affirmative action.
The current classificatory system and disaggregation of data failed to acknowledge multiple forms of discrimination faced within population groups. For example, given that inequality between members of the black African population group was higher than in any other racial group, it was foreseeable that current practice might result in a job opportunity for a wealthy black man of Zulu origin, rather than a poor black woman from an ethnic minority.
Due to the fact that designated groups were bluntly classified and data was insufficiently disaggregated, measures were not capable of being targeted at the most vulnerable groups in society, and could likewise not be designed to respond to new forms of discrimination or compounded discrimination.
The Equality Report concluded that where, for example, African females were sufficiently represented at a certain employment level, a wealthy, heterosexual white man could be granted preferential treatment to the detriment of a poor, African, homosexual woman.
The SAHRC noted that the requirement to consider regional demographics made sense, given the uneven distribution of different population groups across South Africa.
Considering the huge problem constituted by unemployment in South Africa, the legislative amendment and consequent implementation of affirmative action measures may provoke urban migration and thereby exacerbate existing special injustices.
It was recommended that the EEA be amended to target more nuanced groups on the basis of need, and taking into account social and economic indicators. The EEA and its implementation, as well as the design of special measures, were currently misaligned to the constitutional objective of achieving substantive equality.
Mr Van der Bijl said it was accordingly recommended that in qualitatively assessing the impact of affirmative action measures on vulnerable groups, including indigenous people and people with disabilities, the Department of Labour (DOL), in collaboration with the Commission for Employment Equity (CEE) and in consultation with National Treasury (NT), undertake a representative assessment of the implementation of employment equity plans of designated employers in order to ensure that targets were flexibly pursued, and did not amount to rigid quotas.
Consultation with either the CEE or the National Minimum Wage Commission did not include any requirement of consultation with relevant stakeholders to be affected by the "targets." This was in contrast to the requirements for consultation by employers with relevant stakeholders when an employment equity plan was prepared.
The Bill allowed the Minister virtually unlimited powers to set targets for industries and sectors, in circumstances where the exercise of that power involved state intervention and a limitation of freedom. Equalisation was being achieved by state intervention that reached into the private sphere.
This led to the creation of a state-controlled society, where the amount of freedom continually decreased for the alleged sake of promoting the common good.
Solidarity recommended that:
- No amendment should be effected to allow the Ministerial setting of sectoral targets, with the Ministerial role being confined to the publication of sectoral data, by reference to which progress could be measured.
- In the event that an amendment was effected to allow for the setting of Ministerial targets, the proposed provision should allow for broader consultation with stakeholders prior to the publication of targets.
- The proposed provision should provide criteria and guidelines to the Labour Minister on the manner in which the power was to be exercised.
- The amendment should be coupled with a reversion in section 42 to compulsory and cumulative consideration of all relevant and listed factors to assess compliance.
- The amendment must not be coupled with an enforcement mechanism -- such as the proposed amendment to section 53 -- that ensured that the "target" was treated as a quota.
- Quota should be defined under the Act’s definition as : "a requirement to hire or promote a fixed number of persons during a given period and or the reservation of a certain number of vacancies for designated groups."
Ms C Mkhonto (EFF) asked for clarity on consensus between employers and employees. She asked how this would be possible, given the status quo and relationship between employers and employees. With South Africa's socio-political history being based on racial discrimination, how could the past racial imbalances be redressed?
Mr Van der Bijl responded that if one teaches a man to fish, you feed him for life and if you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. Solidarity subscribed to equality over opportunity. Everyone should have equal opportunities. This would automatically lead to a redress of historic injustices.
The Chairperson asked for clarity on social manipulation, and how Mr van der Bijl saw this happening. This was somewhat pragmatic for her, as she was of the understanding that Solidarity and other organisations like it were aware of the rules of Parliament and the role of the Minister.
Mr Van der Bijl said everyone was in the same boat. The current Employment Equity Act showed an in-depth process that had to be followed prior to affirmative action. There was a need to move away from race and focus on socio-economic need. It had been established that an affirmative action plan must be context sensitive. This would ensure agreement. The context of each company must be taken into account. This could not be up to the Minister. This would only lead to a quota system, if context was not taken into account. It would lead to social manipulation if a Minister made decisions that did not take into account a company’s context. For example, if a Minister made a decision that there was underrepresentation of a certain race in a particular sector, but this specific sector may be more localised in a particular province. This was not the reality of a democratic society. This would lead to a quota system where society was manipulated. The Minister of Employment and Labour must look at providing equal opportunities to everyone, regardless of race.
The Chairperson said she would have thought that Solidarity would have done research on what had been done on affirmative action for companies in specific provinces -- for example, where a worker began as a cleaner and advanced to a leadership or managerial position. They were in a country coming from a particular past, which should empower them to move forward. Was Solidarity saying that the Minister had no jurisdiction, and that everything should be left to the private sector to do as they wished? She asked for clarity on this, and the role of government in ensuring transformation in the country. This was a question session, and the Committee would still have its own discussions. What should the government do to address the injustices of the past, which spanned over more than three centuries?
Mr Van der Bijl replied that he would never dispute that there was inequality in South Africa. Looking at the recent report from Stats SA, it would seem that equality had shifted between the races. There was more equality in a specific race group today than there was between race groups. There had been a shift in inequality. There was a role to play by the Minister and the Department. He emphasised that this role should be to ensure good and equal rights and opportunities. This was quite an honourable task. Each employee should have the necessary tools to compete on the same footing as everyone else. While equality in outcome was presented, Solidarity proposed that there should be a shift to quality and opportunity. Race should not be used as a proxy for equality, but socio-economic need should instead be considered for affirmative action. If one considered it in this way, there was a possibility that inequality could be eradicated in one's lifetime.
The Chairperson said Solidarity should have provided the Committee with more pointed examples, as this could have assisted the Committee in its discussions. They had passed the era of being general. It would be important for law makers and businesses to provide pointed examples so that engagements could take place without any suspicion. She asked if detailed examples were given in Solidarity’s written submission.
Mr Van der Bijl said specific examples were not provided in Solidarity’s submission to the Committee, as it had provided a generalised legal argument, but it could provide it with specific examples if need be. He referred to an example involving the Department of Correctional Services four or five years ago. The court had made it clear that the framework set out by the Employment Equity Act was quite strict, and had stated that regional and economically active populations must be taken into account.
South African Medical Devices Industry Association (SAMED)
Ms Tanya Vogt, Executive Officer, SAMED, referred to the setting of sectors and sub-sectors, and said the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) was now in its seventh version, and SAMED had identified inconsistencies that were concerning for the industry body. It appeared that SAMED members had classified themselves for the purposes of their Employment Equity (EE) reports to the Department of Employment and Labour (DEL), not necessarily in accordance with the definitions contained in the SIC.
Given the diversity within the medical devices sector, sub-targets would have to be set up per division. However, for medical devices, compliance with a quality management system, such as ISO 13485:2016, may differentiate a medical device textiles manufacturer from a non-medical device textile manufacturer. Whether products were manufactured from scratch, or only packed and labelled, would also require different staff types and dependence on suitably qualified persons, or persons with the ability to acquire a certain level of skill.
This meant that the staff complement of a medical device textiles manufacturer would differ from others in the textile space, and may even differ from a bandages manufacturer.
Some medical device companies fell under section G, wholesale. However, the definition of a "wholesaler" in this section may be contrary to the definition of a “wholesaler” under the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 1965. The point here was that medical device companies could fall into vastly different categories and therefore face vastly different targets.
The second part of section 15A (subsection 3) dealt with the setting of targets. It empowered the Minister to “set numerical targets for any national economic sector identified.” The Minister may “set different numerical targets for different occupational levels, sub-sectors or regions within a sector, or on the basis of any other relevant factor” (subsection 4). SAMED was of the view that the legislation should reflect that the sector target should be set with the respective industry in a joint consensus-seeking approach.
The level of complexity from one company to the other was significant, ranging from small single-owned businesses to large multinational entities, and as such, the imposition of “one size fits all” targets on a sector without proper and meaningful consultation was unlikely to achieve positive results.
SAMED proposed that the practicalities of the timing, and time-horizons of setting targets, be addressed in the law so that there was certainty as to what would be required of employers. It further proposed that the level of compliance be set out in the Act.
SAMED proposed that the process of compliance certificates, the issuing authority and the timelines, be set out in the Act.
(See presentation for detailed comments on proposed new section 20(2A):The employer’s own targets and compliance with targets).
Ms Mkhonto asked for details, or examples, of regulations which were not aligned with the Bill. If employers set their own targets, how this would be monitored and what standards would employers be monitored against.
Ms Motsei Masilo, SAMED board member, said that when she referred to employers setting their own targets, she was referring to the current Employment Equity Act. Normally, on an annual basis, employers set targets for the next three years. Employers explained how they would go about transformation. When Ministers set sectoral targets, this should be in consultation with the sector so that the sector could provide input when it would not be able to reach a certain target. The sector could advise on when targets were low and would be easily reached.
Dr M Cardo (DA) asked what the main inconsistencies were in the standard industrial qualification. He asked for broad or general inconsistencies. What additional regulatory burden would the setting of individual targets place on med-tech companies?
Ms Vogt said in the last two years, SAMED had done a transformation landscape analysis of its membership. It now knew what it needed to do to create interventions to support transformation. Every medical device company had to have an authorised representative by law. The complexity came in when companies in the med-tech sector may fall within different SIC areas, which would cause confusion. If an authorised representative was required across the med-tech sector, how would one allow such targets? Misalignment was avoided through discussion and consultation. Sub-sectors and various companies had to align. A med-tech company may be importing a variety of med tech products and would fall within a variety of sectors in various classifications. How could one ensure that realistic targets were set so they were either too high or low?
SAMED had picked up that there was a dearth of critical skills in the sector and a curriculum should be drafted and learnerships must be created for people to learn the critical skills and grow the sector and economy. It was in the process of an initiative which looked at how to support this. Another complexity in the sector was that all med-tech companies did not fall under the same sector education and training authority (SETA), given the different types of products and services.
The Chairperson said inequalities should be addressed in the entire country. Because of the nature of the industry, challenges with race, gender, people with disabilities, and age would all be experienced. She was raising this, as it tied in with the system of education of the past which had not enabled certain people to reach their full potential. She referred to a friend’s daughter who had applied to be a medical technologist before 1994. Her parents were asked to put in writing why their child should be accepted into such a programme. The applicant had also had to motivate this. This was one of the sectors which needed to be transformed. She said the sector was dominated by white males, and she would have appreciated SAMED being more specific on issues like this, even if they seemed petty. She got a sense that SAMED had missed the initial process of the Bill, and the Committee would not provide it with clarity on some of the issues raised in its submission at this point.
Ms Masilo said the sector had transformed at a snail's pace. SAMED should have mentioned this at the start of the presentation, and this had been an oversight. In future, SAMED would begin by acknowledging this when it engaged in a similar forum. She had joined SAMED as a board member and chaired the Transformation Committee two years ago. SAMED took this matter very seriously and was aware that it needed to work hard. It had a strategy for transformation.
Agri SA Western Cape
Mr Louis Wessels, Legal Aid Administrator, Agri Western Cape, made the presentation to the Committee.
He said the Amendment Bill must include a contextual valuation of need when amendments such as sectoral targets were proposed. This was the only way that true, substantive equality would be achieved in workplaces.
Mandatory sectoral targets would pose great challenges to an employer, and lead to a situation where producers would find it difficult to comply. The Minister needed to consider the de facto situation and the realities faced by producers in the agricultural sector.
Meaningful consultation with all relevant stakeholders within the agricultural sector must be of utmost importance, because allowing the Minister to impose targets without significant consultation would result in a "one-size-fits-all" approach.
The agricultural sector consisted of numerous sub-sectors, and setting a single target for all of them would not be feasible since their profitability and labour requirements were vastly different.
Unfortunately, the amendments had come at a difficult time with regard to the global pandemic and a constrained economy, with employers having had to retrench and restructure their workforces. This posed the risk of having a negative impact on many employers' ability to meet the targets.
Many employers faced increased uncertainty and financial pressures which may last beyond the pandemic. Hence, the implementation of sectoral targets in 2020/21 would not be feasible, as this would result in a loss of production capacity, revenue and jobs. In the Amendment Bill, the idea that sectoral targets may be set at the ministerial level must be very carefully monitored to ensure that it did not amount to reverting to a system more akin to a "quota."
The Amendment Bill must specify who the Department intended to assign to serve the compliance orders on behalf of labour inspectors, and outline the criteria that would be used to appoint these persons.
Agri SA was of the view that this section would have unintended consequences, as the Amendment Bill did not contain the criteria for reasonable grounds which may justify the circumstances in which an employer was unable to comply with set targets. All sectors must be made aware of the consequences of non-compliance. What was considered as reasonable grounds for not meeting targets must be defined.
Mr Wessels said that depending on the numerical targets, it could be impossible for producers in the farming sector and agri processing sector to the ensure the equitable representation of suitably qualified people from designated groups at all occupational levels in the workforce.
The Minister’s authority to identify sectors, sub-sectors and transformational numerical targets related to these sectors, was extremely broad.
No guidelines with regard to consultation with role players in sectors or sub-sectors were provided.
Agri WC was concerned that the numerical targets proposed in section 15A would be implemented without the necessary insight into the demographics of each region and sector, resulting in unfair treatment of certain demographic groups and infringements on human dignity. It therefore suggested that section 15A be deleted.
Agri WC supported the view that a wage should be paid in accordance with the constitutional provision to uphold each and every person’s human dignity. Section 24(7) authorised the Commission to operate beyond this mandate, and to determine the compensation ratio between occupational levels. Market forces of supply and demand dictate compensation at each occupational level. This system had been proven to be effective, and should not be tampered with.
Agri WC suggested that section 27(4) should be deleted. Trying to engineer income levels at occupational levels would have unintended consequences, adversely affecting employment opportunities and employment rates.
Section 37 must specify who a labour inspector intended to assign to serve the compliance orders on behalf of the labour inspectors. The criteria that would be used to appoint these persons also needed to be outlined.
Section 53 could have the consequence of employers being non-compliant in circumstances where compliance was made impossible. Law-abiding employers could not, and may not, be placed in a position of non-compliance, with no reasonable recourse. Agri WC therefore recommended that section 53 be deleted.
Mr S Ncgobo (IFP) asked about the number of workers Mr Wessels was referring to in his presentation,
Mr Wessels said 3 500 workers.
Ms Mkhonto asked who Agri Western Cape was representing, and whether they were employers or employees. Mr Wessels had said numerical targets would be impossible to achieve. Had Agri performed a feasibility study, and if it had done so, could the Committee be provided with the details on what basis this statement had been made? Was it based on a shortage of qualified persons, a shortage of skills, or any other reason?
Mr Wessels said Agri represented commercial farmers throughout the Western Cape. Based on what the numerical targets may be, they might be impossible to achieve. There was no feasibility study to refer to. If the information on numerical targets came to light, this could be clarified.
The Chairperson said she did not understand why Agri had said that targets would be difficult to achieve when it had not done a feasibility study or research. She said the Committee would be advised by the legal team.
Banking Association of South Africa
Ms Ayanda Baepi, Senior Specialist: Legislation and Regulatory Oversight, Banking Association of South Africa (BASA), presented the Association's recommendations to the Committee:
It proposed that the Minister should revert to the initial agreement that was negotiated at the National Economic Development and Labour Council (NEDLAC), which was to consult with the relevant sector bodies when setting sector targets.
Sector targets should be set nationally, and not differentiated by region.
One of the fundamental principles which was part of EEA -- Section 15 (3) -- was that quotas should be excluded when affirmative measures were designed. Imposed targets were, to all intents and purposes, quotas. These “quotas” would be imposed on a particular industry and companies would be expected to achieve the “targets.” Companies had different challenges and were moving from different bases, irrespective of being in a similar industry/sector.
The approach of setting sector targets would not take individual circumstances into consideration, and this would not only be unfair to others and potentially amount to the creation of unlevelled playing fields, but also went against the principle of equity.
It sought clarity as to whether these imposed targets were aligned with the broad-based black economic empowerment (BBBEE) sector codes. The Bill in its current form had no alignment in the definition and/or calculation. At present, companies reviewed their targets regularly, depending on the operational challenges. BASA noted that the proposed Bill was silent on the review process, the period, and the reasons.
The proposed Bill was also silent on the repercussions for failure to achieve targets in a particular year or over a particular period. The Association needed clarity or guidance in this regard. It further proposed alignment in this regard, to ensure consistency of targets imposed and to ensure clarity and avoid ambiguity.
Clarity was further sought on which one would take precedent -- would it be quotas or targets?
The Association proposed a consultative target-setting process with the sector.
It sought clarity as to what remedy the employer would have, should the Department reject the submission.
BASA proposed a consultative target-setting process with the sector.
It proposed a consultative target-setting process with the sector, and that this requirement be removed from EE compliance.
Mr Bongani Sibanyoni, of BASA, assured the Committee that it was fully in support of the sector targets. The sector would appreciate being consulted on targets to fully understand any nuances. Realistic and achievable targets should be set in consultation with the Minister. Stakeholders may not have specific knowledge of the barriers within a sector, which was why consultation was necessary. He emphasised that the Association was in support of sector targets.
Mr Ntungu Masindi, of BASA, said the burden of dealing with two separate processes would be unreasonable for employers, and the Association recommended that processes should not be conflated.
Dr Cardo said that the Association had described imposed regional targets as quotas. He asked why it had singled out regional targets as quotas? In his view, any imposed target was a quota. He asked for the reasoning behind saying regional targets were quotas.
Ms Mkhonto asked if the required goals had been achieved by other sectors, as set out by the NEDLAC agreements, according to the Association? Did BASA think something proactive was needed? Was it now time to get legislation that would be proactive in protecting employees?
Mr Masindi replied that the Association felt it could not rely on pending cases, such as when an employer did not comply and the case was taken to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA). This process would take too long as some cases could be appealed, and employers may win the case. There had been traction in achieving the goals set out by NEDLAC. The NEDLAC structure recognised that the sector was far behind from where it wanted to be. Different sectors faced various challenges and were at different stages of transformation. It would be beneficial for the Minister to consult with the sector to understand historical targets. The Association recognised that agreements had been made in the past and that sometimes they had not been appropriately implemented.
A BASA representative said the historical context of the use of quotas as they related to employment equity was understood by the Association. It wanted to highlight that selection criteria with a regional basis should be drafted. These should be termed as targets, and would aim to achieve affirmative action and transformation.
The Chairperson asked for clarity on when a process of this nature was attempting to address a challenge in the country, such as the various sectors and its targets, why it was being referred to as quotas.
A BASA representative said regionalising and subdividing the country was problematic, and was a product of the past. People were moving around. This went against the grain of transforming an entire country. Transformation must be viewed in a way that saw South Africa as one country. Regional targets almost took them back to a quota system. This would lose sight of the bigger goal. Due to skills and history, different industries would not just see transformation, but the Association was encouraged to see a transformation in the members of particular sectors.
The Chairperson said she would have appreciated hearing how things had transformed in relation to age, gender, race and disability in the sector so that the Committee did not have a general view when it deliberated on the Bill. For 26 years, the people of South Africa had complained that there had been no transformation.
Ms Baepi said a supplementary submission could be given to the Committee.
The Chairperson said two entities had asked for clarity on issues relating to the Bill. They would not receive clarity today, but would when the Committee debated on the Bill. She asked for legal guidance.
Ms Sue-Anne Isaac, Parliamentary Legal Advisor, said the Department would be best placed to provide clarity to the entities.
The Chairperson said the Bill would ensure issues of transformation were addressed. She asked if the entities needed to provide background information on the demographics of their respective institutions.
Ms Isaac said there was nothing wrong with the Committee requesting further information to assist it in making decisions.
The Chairperson said the issues needed to be cleared up as the Committee moved along.
The Chairperson thanked all present in the meeting. The final oral submissions on the Employment Equity Bill would be made the following day.
The meeting was adjourned.
Dunjwa, Ms ML
Bagraim, Mr M
Cardo, Dr MJ
Mkhonto, Ms C N
Ngcobo, Mr SL
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.