DA argues that employment targets set by labour minister could lead to employers firing employees who don't meet quotas
The party is on Tuesday arguing in the North Gauteng High Court that the section of the act that gives the minister the powers to set numerical targets that don’t align with provincial demographics or industry specific needs, is unconstitutional.
FILE: A Democratic Alliance flag. Picture: RODGER BOSCH/AFP
CAPE TOWN - The Democratic Alliance (DA) has argued that employment targets set by the labour minister could result in employers having to fire employees who don't meet the quotas that have been set.
The party is on Tuesday arguing in the North Gauteng High Court that the section of the act that gives the minister the powers to set numerical targets that don’t align with provincial demographics or industry specific needs, is unconstitutional.
While the case has been brewing for two years, recently published sectoral targets have added more fuel to the fire, with the DA saying these differ substantially from original targets published for public comment.
The DA told the court that taking away the autonomy businesses have under the current act to design their own employment equity plans would be erased by the employment minister's race-based sectoral targets that will under the amended act have to apply to all employers of more than 50 staff and across all sectors.
Those which don't comply, face a hefty fine starting at R1.5 million, or two percent of their turnover, and won’t be allowed to do business with the state.
Advocate Ismail Jamie told the court the targets set by the minister under Section 15(A) of the amended act were blunt, rigid and deeply intrusive.
"That is not constitutional, primarily because the effects it has on the dignity of those affected by the imposition of those quotas."
Ismail used the example of an Indian woman failing to get a job in the financial industry sector in Gauteng owing to the low limit set for this category and forcing her to move to KwaZulu-Natal instead, where the quota is higher.
The DA is asking the court to declare at least this section of the amended act, which is not yet in force, unconstitutional and invalid.