The Democratic Alliance (DA) appeared at the North Gauteng High Court on Tuesday to challenge the Employment Equity Amendment Act.
The party argues that the new law gives too much power to the national government when it comes to setting employment targets, and that this could lead to unfair treatment in the workplace.
DA says new Act does not explain quotas
Ismail Jamie, the DA’s lawyer, told the court that the amended law tries to enforce what he called “must be it” quotas within five years.
He said the Act does not explain how these quotas should be achieved.
Jamie asked the court to rule that the Act is unconstitutional, calling the legislation “offensive”.
He told the court that the law no longer fulfils its original goal of ensuring fair representation in workplaces.
Jamie said that, under the amended Act, the Minister of Employment and Labour now has the power to decide on employment equity targets, which he believes could create problems.
Deviation from original idea
He explained that the original idea was to reach broad representation, but he feels that has changed.
The original targets were specific and broken down by both race and province, he said.
“They were broken down across the provinces and across the race groups. So, in respect of designated groups, you’ll recall that the targets provided for different figures. Targets in respect of Indian, Coloured, and African people.
“Those targets differed from province to province. If one failed to reach those targets, they would be in breach of the Act,” said Jamie.
A lawyer representing the department argued consultations are first held within sectors. He said that the minister has a right to say when there is slow improvement in democracy but does not take away the power that the employer has.
Defence disagrees
The lawyer, whose name is not known to Sunday World, said the government should be able to measure whether a workplace is democratised. Also whether management represents demographics of the country, and whether there are fair promotions within a workplace.
“The fact that targets can be set by ministers does not make them rigid or inflexible. It depends how they are set, and it depends how they are applied,” said the lawyer.
“So the framework simply says the minister can set the targets. If the targets have not been set properly in compliance with the basic requirements of 15(a), then we can come and argue on another day in this court. We can say whether or not the target we have set adequately addresses what is sought to be done.”
Judgement has been reserved in the matter.
