Labour runs into flak from Nedlac
• Department of Labour blamed for its mistakes on minimum wages
The Department of Labour’s bungling of draft policy agreements reached at the National Economic Development and Labour Council undermines the work of the organisation.
The Department of Labour’s bungling of draft policy agreements reached at the National Economic Development and Labour Council (Nedlac) undermines the work of the organisation, says Nedlac executive director Madoda Vilakazi.
The department had no legal right to alter agreements such as those reached on the national minimum wage when drafting bills, Vilakazi said.
This comes after labour federations and community constituencies slated the manner in which the department has handled the minimum wage bills after some sections of the legislation were changed.
The department bungled a key definition of “worker” in the Basic Conditions of Employment Act, thereby excluding independent contractors and task-based work from the category of covered employees.
The bills also introduced new provisions that were not discussed at Nedlac during negotiations between the government, business, labour and the community, such as the scrapping of sectoral determinations, which currently determine the wage levels of domestic workers and farm workers, among others.
The national minimum wage was formulated to increase the wages of 6-million workers who currently earn less than the R20-an-hour level agreed to at Nedlac following three years of negotiations.
Vilakazi said that Nedlac was an important institution that added value to the country. When such mistakes were made, “it does undermine the work of Nedlac”.
In January the department conceded that the definition of “worker” in the bill was not an intentional deviation from the agreement and vowed to correct it.
However, the bill that is now before Parliament still contains the same definition, with union federations vowing to ensure it is changed by the time the final piece of legislation is concluded.
According to the department, the “oversight” in the national minimum wage came about during the “certification process” between the office of the chief state law adviser and the department’s drafters.
It has not indicated whether it would be correcting other sections in the bill that are equally problematic according to Cosatu, Fedusa and Nactu.
One of the many functions of Nedlac is to consider all proposed labour legislation before it is implemented or introduced in Parliament.
Vilakazi said that Nedlac was still an effective institution despite the challenges with the labour department.
“The reality of the situation is that Nedlac is playing its role as it was anticipated in 1995 when it was formed.
“If there are mistakes like what has happened [with the minimum wage bill], it does undermine the work of Nedlac. But by and large, what is agreed to at Nedlac is ultimately implemented,” he said.
Vilakazi also emphasised the fact that labour federations or business organisations that were represented at Nedlac would still be able to make objections in Parliament.
While Vilakazi admitted the department’s blunders were harming Nedlac, he maintained that the institution’s detractors were wrong to suggest it had lost its effectiveness.
Vilakazi said Nedlac had brought about positive changes in the country.
“The statement that Nedlac is ineffective is not borne [out] by fact. Major legislation is considered here. The situation is dynamic,” he said.