South Africa's municipal workers gain surrogacy leave rights
The SA Local Government Bargaining Council has amended its leave collective agreement, to pave the way for three months' paid surrogacy leave following an out-of-court settlement.
Image: File
Municipal workers in surrogacy arrangements are now entitled to three months' paid leave, like biological and adoptive mothers, following an agreement reached at the SA Local Government Bargaining Council (SALGBC).
Parties to the SALGBC – the SA Local Government Association, SA Municipal Workers' Union, and the Independent Municipal and Allied Trade Union (Imatu) – concluded the agreement providing for parents in surrogacy arrangements.
In terms of the agreement, parents in surrogacy arrangements will be entitled to the same leave as biological and adoptive parents.
According to the bargaining council, the agreement will be applicable retrospectively from October 2023, when the Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg, Deputy Judge President Roland Sutherland declared invalid some provisions of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act and corresponding provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Fund Act.
Video Player is loading.
Play Video
Play
Unmute
Current Time
0:00
/
Duration
-:-
Loaded :
0%
Stream Type LIVE
Seek to live, currently behind live
LIVE
Remaining Time
-
0:00
This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque
Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps
Reset
restore all settings to the default values Done
Close Modal Dialog
End of dialog window.
Advertisement
Next
Stay
Close ✕
The judge found parts of both acts invalid because of inconsistency with the Constitution to the extent that the provisions unfairly discriminated between mothers and fathers, and between one set of parents and another based on whether their children were born of the mother, were conceived by surrogacy, or were adopted.
Judge Sutherland also ruled that any employee who is a commissioning parent in a surrogate motherhood agreement is entitled to leave.
Earlier this month, the SALGBC advised municipalities to take all necessary steps to give effect to the amendment and display the circular sent by the bargaining council general secretary, Bill Govender.
The agreement on maternity, adoption, and surrogacy leave states that employees adopting a child under three months as well as those who are commissioning parents in surrogacy motherhood arrangements are entitled to three months paid maternity, adoption, or surrogacy leave with no limit to the number of confinements, adoptions, or surrogacy confinements.
'This leave provision shall also apply to an employee whose child is stillborn. Maternity, adoption, or surrogacy leave may commence four weeks before confinement,' reads the agreement.
Imatu, which represents over 110,000 employees in the local government sector, described the fully paid surrogacy leave as a groundbreaking victory for women's rights.
The union said this breakthrough recognised the evolving nature of parenthood and affirms the principle of equality in the workplace, regardless of the path to motherhood.
Imatu initiated two separate urgent Labour Court applications involving its members who were commissioning mothers in surrogacy arrangements.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Eyewitness News
a day ago
- Eyewitness News
After Ramaphosa's rebuke over her conduct in Parly, Nkabane promises to lead with humility
CAPE TOWN - Having reflected on her recent conduct in Parliament, Higher Education Minister Nobuhle Nkabane said that she could have handled the situation differently. Following a week of public backlash, the president has ordered her to explain her behaviour to him. On Thursday night, Nkabane accepted the rebuke in a statement she issued, saying that she intended to lead with humility. A minister for less than a year, Nkabane has landed herself in hot water over the manner in which she engaged with MPs of the higher education portfolio committee last week, when she appeared dismissive towards them during questioning about sector education training authorities (SETAs). Presidency spokesperson, Vincent Magwenya, said that no deadline had been set for Nkabane to explain herself to the president. But he said that comfort should be taken in the fact that what transpired during Nkabane's appearance in Parliament had not escaped the president's attention. "It's often better to leave that between the president and the minister concerned, otherwise you are running the risk of the president managing issues with members of his national executive in the public domain, which is not ideal and will not be prudent. We should allow the minister a little bit of room to address the matter with the minister." Following that announcement, Nkabane said she had noted the concerns about her conduct but it had not been her intention to evade accountability nor the decorum of Parliament. "I intend to inculcate and maintain a constructive, respectful and professional working relationship with all Members of Parliament. I remain committed to the principles of accountability, good governance, and cooperative governance as outlined in our Constitution and parliamentary protocols," Nkabane said in a statement. Nkabane added that she was committed to strengthening the relationship between the ministry, the department and the portfolio commitee.
Daily Maverick
a day ago
- Daily Maverick
Parliament to abide by high court order preventing Hlophe from sitting on JSC
The court found that Parliament had violated the Constitution by designating Hlophe — an impeached judge who had fallen foul of his oath of office — to serve on the JSC. Parliament will abide by a high court order setting aside its decision to designate impeached former Western Cape Judge President John Hlophe as a member of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC). Parliamentary spokesperson Moloto Mothapo said the Western Cape Division of the High Court had ruled on Monday that the decision by Parliament had been 'unconstitutional, invalid and was therefore reviewed and set aside'. The party to which Hlophe belongs, former president Jacob Zuma's uMkhonto Wesizwe (MK), was also in the spotlight this week when it announced that its secretary-general, Floyd Shivambu, had been demoted and would be sent back to Parliament as an ordinary MP. Musical chairs There he will sit in the opposition benches alongside Hlophe, who is the party's deputy president. In the same opposition catchment in the National Assembly will be EFF leader Julius Malema, Shivambu's former comrade whom he betrayed to join MK. Hlophe has announced that he will appeal against the order. MK spokesperson Nhlamulo Ndhlela said the party was 'determined to expose the fundamental injustices embedded in the current Constitution and will therefore appeal this shocking judgment in an effort to educate the public about the urgent need for parliamentary sovereignty blended with indigenous African law based on ubuntu, collective ownership of economic resources and the will of the people where the law can no longer be manipulated to justify hatred for certain targeted individuals.' Interpretive guidance Court applications were brought by the Democratic Alliance, Freedom Under Law and Corruption Watch after the National Assembly on 9 July 2024 designated Hlophe to serve as one of its representatives on the JSC in terms of section 178 of the Constitution. This week, Parliament noted 'the interpretative guidance offered by the court' which offered its concern about 'the rationality of designating a member who was previously found guilty of gross misconduct and removed from judicial office, and who has continued to demonstrate conduct incompatible with Parliament's obligation to protect and ensure the independence and integrity of the judiciary'. Mothapo said as the judgment bore implications for Parliament's internal arrangements, procedures and processes relating to the designation of representatives to the JSC and other constitutional bodies, it would 'take all necessary steps to ensure alignment with the court's findings'. This included instituting 'the appropriate processes to ensure that future designations comply with the constitutional principles outlined in the judgment'. The court ordered Hlophe and MK to pay the costs of the application. Parliament violated Constitution It found that Parliament had violated the Constitution by designating Hlophe — an impeached judge who had fallen foul of his oath of office — to a seat on the JSC. This would have compromised and undermined the integrity and legitimacy of the JSC and any process in which Hlophe might be involved in the appointment of future judges, the full bench set out in a concurring judgment. 'The National Assembly did not consider the relevant fact that Dr Hlophe had been impeached for gross misconduct. Instead, it relied on irrelevant considerations, such as established parliamentary practices and conventions, which cannot override constitutional requirements,' read the order. DM
Daily Maverick
2 days ago
- Daily Maverick
School's decision to change name from ‘disgraced' DF Malan to DF Akademie ‘undeniably rational'
The Supreme Court of Appeal has upheld a Bellville school's decision to change its name from DF Malan High School to DF Akademie to distance itself from its apartheid past, despite objections from some parents. A Full Bench of the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) has dismissed a review application by four parents and found the school governing body (SGB) of DF Malan High School in Bellville, Western Cape, acted within its powers to rename the school in line with its values of inclusivity and academic excellence. This means the Afrikaans-medium school's name can be changed to DF Akademie, as suggested in May 2021. The voting for a new name took place in October 2021. Of the 3,466 votes received, the overwhelming majority, namely 85%, proposed DF Akademie. The litigation stems from Barend Rautenbach, Johan Smit, Francois Malan and Barend de Klerk taking umbrage against the SGB's decision after a consultative process in May 2021, to change the name of the school. In essence, they requested that the SCA review and set aside the decision of Western Cape Division of the High Court Judge Robert Henney, who dismissed the appellants' application to maintain the name DF Malan, the prime minister from 1948 to 195, who is considered to be one of the architects of apartheid. In his ruling, Henney said, 'The glorification of his name by an insistence that a school be named after him in post-apartheid South Africa where young people have to embrace a culture based on the values of our Constitution is an insult not only to them, but to the millions of South Africans who suffered at the hands of the apartheid regime.' The SCA judgment, penned by acting Judge John Smith, found the SGB's consultation process was comprehensive, fair and rational. 'The name of Dr Malan harks back to the apartheid era, an association that is fundamentally at odds with the school's ethos of inclusivity and transformation. The governing body's decision to purge the school of this unfortunate association with a disgraced legacy is thus undeniably rational and in the best interest of the school and all its stakeholders,' he stated. The ruling further stated that, while the school took pride in its academic success culture and inclusive policies, its controversial name had been an albatross around its neck. Stigma of name and call for change The school was established in 1954. Shortly after its establishment, the school obtained the permission of the then prime minister to name the school after him. In 2018, an alumnus wrote to the governing body, describing the name as 'insensitive and inappropriate' and demanded that the school begin a process to change its name. In September 2019, the school received similar letters from a parent of two learners. The pressure on the SGB to reconsider the school's name intensified during June 2020 when a group of alumni calling themselves 'DF Malan Must Fall' joined the fray. Their stated objective was to agitate for a name change and to address the 'institutional racism' at the school. In June 2020, the SGB began a process that would allow it to determine if the school's symbols, including its anthem and name, should be changed, as well as the cost implications thereof. Since the Schools Act does not prescribe a procedure for the changing of a school's name, the governing body was at sea concerning the issue and had to do its best to devise a fair process to enable consultation with stakeholders. All it had to rely on were circulars from the Department of Education and the Federation of Governing Bodies for South African Schools (Fedsas). Significantly, both circulars presumed that the governing body had the authority to change the school's name. A departmental circular, while instructing governing bodies to submit names to the provincial education department to enable it to check whether other schools bore the same name, expressly stated that a governing body's authority to change a school's name was beyond question. The Fedsas circular reminded governing bodies that changing a school's name was a sensitive matter and cautioned that wide consultation with all stakeholders, including parents, teachers, learners and the broader community, had to inform any decisions regarding a school's symbols, including its name, motto or emblem. Varied responses It was then suggested that the governing body create an ad hoc steering committee to oversee the consultation process and advise on potential new names or symbols. On 22 June 2020, the governing body wrote to all parents, students, alumni, and school staff on its database, informing them of its decision to begin a process to reconsider the school's name and symbols. The letter elicited a variety of responses, with some expressing misgivings about a name change, others supporting it and some making suggestions about the process that should be followed. The SGB then appointed an independent facilitator, Dr Jan Frederick Marais, a theologian of the Ecumenical Board of Stellenbosch University's Theology Faculty, and a renowned mediation expert, and thereafter a steering committee. Chairperson of the governing body Andre Roux asserted that although the steering committee members were advised to focus discussions on the school's symbols and identity, they were not instructed to prohibit discussions on the school's name. A draft report was eventually compiled and while everybody agreed with the school's core values as formulated by Dr Marais, three steering committee members disagreed with the decision to change the school's name. They were Veronica van Zyl, Mette Warnich – who also filed affidavits in support of the appeal application – and Gert Visser. On Marais's advice, a new task team was thereafter formed to advise the governing body on the formulation of a consultative process with stakeholders; criteria against which proposed new names could be evaluated; and the financial implications of a name change. The task team decided that invitations should be sent to all persons on the school's database to propose new names. After the invitations to comment were sent in April 2021, 626 of the recipients responded – 301 proposing that the name DF Malan be retained and 325 suggesting new names. However, the SGB decided that only two of the four names submitted by the task team were acceptable, namely Protea Akademie and DF Akademie. In a vote, DF Akademie won 85%. The appellants in the case took issue with several points. They claimed SGBs did not have the authority to change a school's name, that the SGB departed from the procedure it originally shared with the school community, stifled debate and failed to properly consult on the name change. The SCA judgment dismissed the complaints. 'I find that in changing the school's name, the governing body was acting within the ambit of its implied powers in terms of the Schools Act; that the procedure it adopted to consult interested parties was comprehensive, fair and rational; and that the decision to change the school's name was taken with due regard to, and rationally connected to the information before it. The appeal must therefore fail,' it read. DM
