Latest news with #EmploymentEquity
IOL News
3 days ago
- Business
- IOL News
Neasa doubles down on opposition to Employment Equity quotas
The National Employers' Association of South Africa (Neasa) on Tuesday upped its anti against Employment Equity sectoral numerical quotas. Image: Leon Lestrade/ Independent Newspapers The National Employers' Association of South Africa (Neasa) on Tuesday upped its anti against Employment Equity sectoral numerical quotas and wrote an open letter to President Cyril Ramaphosa and the Minister of Employment and Labour Nomakhosazana Meth. This comes hot on the heels of Neasa and Sakekuga earlier this month lodging an urgent legal challenge against the employment equity quotas and accompanying administrative regulations. Neasa said although this challenge deals with both procedural and substantive defects relating to the new numerical sectoral quotas, another major obstacle, which has been amplified by the new quotas, stands in the way of employers even contemplating complying with these regulations. It stated that the Employment Equity regulations and the unconstitutional obligation placed upon employers to classify employees by their race and disability is ethically untenable, impractical, and divisive. Gerhard Papenfus the CEO of Neasa, raised the following points. He said the purpose of the individually completed EEA1 form is to acquire data in order to create a workplace profile illustrating the current racial, gender, and disability composition of the employer's workforce. Therefore, by requesting employees to self-classify as to their race and disability, this form effectively expects them to firstly, navigate the complexities of race, gender and ethnicity in a policy and classification-criteria vacuum and, secondly, in perpetuity, set themselves up to be discriminated against based on a potentially uninformed decision. However, there is no legal obligation on employees to complete the form or to do so 'accurately'. Neasa said it had already heard of employees refusing to complete the EEA1 form for reasons including personal convictions, fear of discrimination, being of a mixed ethnic background, etc. There are no guidelines for employees regarding the determination of race, and the guidelines regarding disability contain a myriad of contradictions. However, it said this eventuality has, seemingly, also been anticipated in the regulations as can be deduced from the wording of the EEA12 form, which stipulates that: 'Where there is doubt in the self-identification process of an employee, existing and/or historical information may be used to assist to verify an employee's status'; and Regulation 8(2), which reads as follows: 'Where an employee refuses to complete the EEA1 form or provides inaccurate information, the employer may establish the designation of an employee by using reliable historical and existing data …' Papenfus said, "Minister, these provisions place employers in a precarious and impossible position, particularly in the context of South Africa's history of state racial classification. The regulations expect employers to unilaterally and arbitrarily classify the race and disability of a particular employee who has elected not to self-identify by these criteria or whom, in the opinion of the employer, or an appointed human resource manager, or consultant, was inaccurate when self-declaring." He said this decision must then be made by an employer to determine the race or disability of a particular employee. However, "it is not within the constitutional ambit of any employer, or any other person for that matter, to decide on these characteristics of another person." Furthermore, although the government no longer has such authority, the Employment Equity regulations impose on employers the obligation to engage in just such classification of people, without any empowering provision to do so, and without providing any guidance on the methods or criteria to be implemented to reach just conclusions, within the framework of the Rule of Law, on the race and disability of a person. Papenfus said this obligation imposed on employers, not only places them in an untenable ethical position, but is also legally impermissible and practically impossible to comply with. Neasa said it could not allow for this unconstitutional obligation and unacceptable burden to be placed upon employers. It called on the state to stop forcing employers to carry out the government's desired racial classification and discrimination on its behalf. "Mr President and Minister Meth, we are not willing to do your dirty work," Papenfus said. BUSINESS REPORT
IOL News
10-07-2025
- Business
- IOL News
NEASA and Sakeliga file urgent court bid to halt employment equity quotas
The National Employers Association of South Africa (NEASA) and Sakeliga have filed an urgent application in the Gauteng High Court In a joint statement issued to the media late on Thursday, the two groups argued that the quotas were introduced without proper consultation and failed to comply with legal and constitutional requirements. IOL previously reported that the government plans to introduce new employment equity targets under the amended Employment Equity Act (EEAA). These targets apply to 18 key sectors and require certain employers, particularly in senior roles, to align their workforce with the country's racial and gender demographics. The National Employers Association of South Africa (NEASA) and Sakeliga have filed an urgent application in the Gauteng High Court seeking to interdict the implementation of the Employment Equity sectoral quotas. "The Minister did not act in accordance with the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA), as she failed to adhere to the prescriptions of Section 15A of the EEA prior to the setting and publishing of the 2025 sectoral numerical quotas. This renders her actions unlawful and invalid". Earlier this year IOL also reported Minister of Employment and Labour, Nkosazana Meth, defended the sectoral quotas and criticised opposition to the reforms. She also accused the Democratic Alliance (DA), which has also launched a court challenge against the quotas, of seeking to maintain the status quo. "The DA's challenge seeks to disrupt efforts aimed at achieving equitable representation and maintaining the inherently unfair status quo. By opposing these amendments, the DA is actively sabotaging the transformation goals that have been pursued since the end of the apartheid era". NEASA and Sakeliga further argued that the quotas were 'irrational and arbitrary,' failing to consider the diverse circumstances across sectors, including differences in skills availability and regional demographics. The two groups also pointed out that the final quotas 'differ drastically' from earlier drafts published in 2023 and 2024 but were never republished for renewed public comment as required by law. "The quotas disregard South Africa's constitutional stipulations on non-racialism, equality before the law, and administrative justice". IOL News Get your news on the go, click here to join the IOL News WhatsApp channel.
IOL News
10-07-2025
- Business
- IOL News
NEASA and Sakeliga file urgent court bid to halt employment equity quotas
The National Employers Association of South Africa (NEASA) and Sakeliga have filed an urgent application in the Gauteng High Court In a joint statement issued to the media late on Thursday, the two groups argued that the quotas were introduced without proper consultation and failed to comply with legal and constitutional requirements. IOL previously reported that the government plans to introduce new employment equity targets under the amended Employment Equity Act (EEAA). These targets apply to 18 key sectors and require certain employers, particularly in senior roles, to align their workforce with the country's racial and gender demographics. The National Employers Association of South Africa (NEASA) and Sakeliga have filed an urgent application in the Gauteng High Court seeking to interdict the implementation of the Employment Equity sectoral quotas. "The Minister did not act in accordance with the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA), as she failed to adhere to the prescriptions of Section 15A of the EEA prior to the setting and publishing of the 2025 sectoral numerical quotas. This renders her actions unlawful and invalid". Earlier this year IOL also reported Minister of Employment and Labour, Nkosazana Meth, defended the sectoral quotas and criticised opposition to the reforms. She also accused the Democratic Alliance (DA), which has also launched a court challenge against the quotas, of seeking to maintain the status quo. "The DA's challenge seeks to disrupt efforts aimed at achieving equitable representation and maintaining the inherently unfair status quo. By opposing these amendments, the DA is actively sabotaging the transformation goals that have been pursued since the end of the apartheid era". NEASA and Sakeliga further argued that the quotas were 'irrational and arbitrary,' failing to consider the diverse circumstances across sectors, including differences in skills availability and regional demographics. The two groups also pointed out that the final quotas 'differ drastically' from earlier drafts published in 2023 and 2024 but were never republished for renewed public comment as required by law. "The quotas disregard South Africa's constitutional stipulations on non-racialism, equality before the law, and administrative justice". IOL News Get your news on the go, click here to join the IOL News WhatsApp channel.
IOL News
10-07-2025
- Politics
- IOL News
DA suing its own government — legal blitz on ANC raises eyebrows in fragile GNU
A DA flag blows in a breeze with the South African flag behind it. Democratic Alliance (DA) has adopted an aggressive legal strategy, initiating at least four major court challenges against its Government of National Unity (GNU) partner, the ANC and several of its ministers but maintains double standards when needed. The Democratic Alliance (DA) has adopted an aggressive legal strategy, initiating at least four major court challenges against its Government of National Unity (GNU) partner, the ANC and several of its ministers but maintains double standards when needed. However, this assertive approach has raised concerns about apparent double standards. While the DA frames these legal actions as principled efforts to uphold constitutional democracy, critics argue they reflect a pattern of political inconsistency and selective accountability. High-profile figures such as Deputy President Paul Mashatile and Minister of Higher Education Nobuhle Nkabane have been the subjects of DA allegations ranging from corruption to fraud. Most recently, Police Minister Senzo Mchunu has come under the party's scrutiny. Despite the public attention these cases have received, none have resulted in a conviction — prompting questions about the DA's legal strategy, consistency, and overall credibility. The DA has also taken legal action against several key policy initiatives, including the Expropriation Act, the National Health Insurance (NHI) Bill, VAT increases, and Employment Equity reforms — all central to the ANC's policy agenda and widely anticipated within the GNU framework.
IOL News
10-07-2025
- Business
- IOL News
Neasa and Sakeliga mount legal challenge against employment regulations
The National Employers' Association of South Africa (Neasa) and Sakeliga have jointly filed an urgent application for an interdict against the implementation of the 2025 Employment Equity sectoral numerical quotas. The National Employers' Association of South Africa (Neasa) and Sakeliga have jointly filed an urgent application for an interdict against the implementation of the 2025 Employment Equity sectoral numerical quotas and accompanying administrative regulations, as well as calling for the judicial review and setting aside thereof. The Minister of Employment and Labour, Dr Nomakhosazana Meth published the employment equity regulations of April 15. These quotas require employers with 50 or more employees to restructure their entire workforce to reflect national gender and racial demographics of the country. The application challenges the legality and constitutionality of the newly introduced employment equity framework. The legal challenge firstly aims for a judicial review of the procedural acts of the Minister in setting the quotas, which the organisations alledge were fraught with irregularities and inadequacies in process. Secondly, the challenge also entails a constitutional challenge of the substance of relevant sections in the Employment Equity Act (EEA), which allow for and facilitate the setting and enforcement of these quotas. In the founding affidavit, Neasa and Sakeliga argue that the Minister did not act in accordance with the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, as she failed to adhere to the prescriptions of Section 15A of the EEA prior to the setting and publishing of the 2025 sectoral numerical quotas. They claim this renders Meth's actions unlawful and invalid. The court papers, filed in the Gauteng Division of the High Court, also contend the Minister failed to properly identify, and gazette for public comment, the 18 national economic sectors for purposes of setting quotas, as required by Section 15A(4). Neasa and Sakeliga also argue that there was not proper consultation. Instead, they say stakeholders across numerous sectors were either not invited or not given adequate notice of virtual 'consultations', all of which were limited to only 1 000 attendees. "Some stakeholders were given the final quotas only hours before these so-called consultations, with most consultations allowing less than 15 minutes for feedback and discussions. The Minister completely neglected to consult with employees in the economic sectors who will be severely affected by the quotas. Consultation in this manner is woefully inadequate for the Minister to have come to a reasonable, non-arbitrary decision in respect of the quotas," they said. Neasa and Sakeliga also say the final 2025 quotas differ drastically from the earlier draft quotas published in 2023 and 2024 respectively. Despite this, they were never published for renewed public comment as required by section 15A(4) of the Act. This is a legal requirement and failure to adhere to it renders the quotas invalid. They also argue that the quotas are arbitary and do not take into account the nature, circumstances and challenges of each sector. "The Minister failed to obtain and consider a comprehensive socio-economic impact study on the consequences of introducing sectoral quotas... This cannot be rationally introduced as a legal requirement without a proper assessment of its socio-economic impacts," the legal challenge maintains. The second leg of the legal challenge questions the constitutionality and legality of the concept of forced ministerial quotas, which will be comprehensively argued at a later stage. "Unless the Court intervenes and grants the interim relief sought, every employer that employs 50 employees or more, in every sector of the economy, will be required by legislation to prepare and implement employment equity plans to make their workforce conform to the 2025 quotas," they said. "This filing marks the next important step in preventing these impossible, irrational, and harmful employment quotas for the benefit of employers, employees, and all communities across the country." Attempts to get comment from the Department of Employment and Labour by the time of going to print were unsuccessful. BUSINESS REPORT
