S.2.1 'NEW ENVIRONMENT' AND WORKER PARTICIPATION
5.2.4 THE EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACT (1998) AND WORKER PARTICIPATION
proposals made in the draft document from being developed and attempts made to put them into practice.
5.2.4 THE EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACT (1998) AND WORKER
that the company seeks to ensure that through various empowerment schemes historically disadvantaged groups are allowed to participate in various levels of the decision making organs of the company. The same issue has also been raised by the trade unions during the relationship by objectives exercise conducted between management and the two trade unions.
During this relationship building exercise, the trade unions accused management of having an employment policy grounded on racial discrimination. To this end, they demanded that the company should stop racial promotions and begin to address the question of equity in its employment practices. It was agreed at this meeting that a committee comprising of representatives from the three parties would have to be formed to look into the question of employment equity within the company.
It is worth noting that the trade union and management delegations were having different views on how soon this question should be tackled. On the one hand, trade unions wanted the committee to be formed as soon as possible in order to begin to deal with the issue as a matter of urgency, whilst management on their part maintained that there were other pressing issues requiring urgent attention before this committee could be formed. This view by management is grounded on their assumption that the question of employment equity is not a major problem because in their view the company had long begun with the process. In the general manager's words for instance:
"As far as I am concerned the issue can be looked at later. The reason being that it should not be a source of conflict in the sense that all employees are aware that the company policy in this regard is that of non-racialism and non-sexism. Whilst I agree that we may not have been able to speed up the pace of moving towards this direction, I am however, of the opinion that we are making reasonable progress" (Interview, July (998).
Arguing against this viewpoint, one employee pointed out that whilst it has been the policy of the company on paper at least, to say that employees are promoted not on the basis of colour, the reality is that employment practices still reflect the old apartheid thinking where race takes precedence over competency when it comes to selection. He goes on to argue that:
"Even if it was true that people are selected on the basis of their qualifications and experience, it is still not fair because most of us blacks, do not have the often required experience, This do not mean that we are not capable. The tendency as of now does not take these dynamics into account" (Interview, July 1998).
To accommodate the two viewpoints propounded in this regard, the three parties agreed that the target date for the initiation of discussions is as soon as the initiation is motivated by one of the parties. The attempt at forming a structure that would accommodate all three parties has as its primary objective the need to ensure that all interested parties are given space to express their viewpoints in terms of how the process should unfold. It was also decided that this structure would have the final decision making power in terms of employment equity.
In line with this need to ensure the inclusivity of any process aimed at striving to create with the view to sustaining the equitable employment and representation of historically disadvantaged employees, Section 16 (I) of the Employment Equity Act states that:
"A designated employer must take reasonable steps to consult and attempt to reach agreement on the matters referred to in Section 17 with a representative trade union representing members at the workplace and its employees or representatives nominated by them or if no representative trade union represents members at the workplace ,with its employees or representatives nominated by them."
Section 17 refers to (a) the conduct of the analysis; (b) the preparation and
implementation of the equity plan; and (c) a report to the Director General.
It is clear that the position taken by management and the two trade unions in terms of the three parties initiating the process is in line with the requirement as stipulated in Section 16 (1) of the Employment Equity Act (1998), requiring a designated employer to consult with a representative trade union and employees or representatives nominated by them.
Section 16 (2) of the same Act goes beyond this position to assert that the employees or their nominated representatives with whom the employer consults in terms of subsection (1) (a) and (b), taken as a whole must reflect the interests of:
- employees from across all occupational categories and levels of the employer workforce;
employees from designated groups;
and employees who are not from designated groups.
It is clear from the above requirement of the Employment Equity Act (1998) that the position adopted by the three parties, falls short of satisfying these requirements. For instance, all company employees working in the administration, including but not limited to the sales, accounts, reception, purchasing and production planners are not members of any trade union. The implication of this situation is clearly that representation by the two trade unions on these discussions may not be reflective of the interests of these
employees working in the administration section of the business. Commenting on this requirement, one shop-steward pointed out that the need to include other players such as employees who do not belong to either of the two trade unions and employees who are not from designated groups, as determined by the Act would have to be discussed
between the three parties before anything can be done.
However, the feeling seems to be that as long as this inclusion does not create stumbling blocks to the speedy identification of problem areas and agreements reached to resolve them, workers do not anticipate major difficulties. What must also be noted is the fact that any structure which is eventually agreed upon, would be dealing with issues at the highest level of the company's decision making process. These decisions were previously the prerogati ve of management and employees had no say in terms of employment
policies, particularly at management level. Indications point to the fact that discussions, which had been going on between these three parties and the need to comply with the Act change and seriously re-define relations between management and employees in this company.