SAA ‘breaks’ immigration law

UNION PROTESTS: US WORKERS ON A JOB AT O.R. TAMBO WITHOUT REQUISITE WORK PERMITS

Carrier’s memo indicates management is aware of the legal violation.

ANew-York-based aviation consulting firm, awarded a six-month contract for $4.5 million (R59.1 million) by South African Airways (SAA), allegedly violated the Immigration Act by allowing its team to work in the country on tourism visas.

Seabury Aviation Consulting, now part of Accenture, has since March stationed about seven staffers at OR Tambo International Airport in Johannesburg without work permits. Yet the Department of Home Affairs has taken no action against them.

Seabury started its work at SAA in January and the contract expires in June.

A document seen by The Citizen shows that Seabury’s vice-chairperson, Michael B Cox, executive director Michael Mason, associate consultants Christopher Jacobi and Abby Nutting, consultants Queenie Chan and Erin Jakupciak and associate Justas Gumbrevicius are among those accused by the South African Transport & Allied Workers’ Union (Satawu) of working in South Africa on visitors’ permits.

An SAA internal memorandum leaked to The Citizen, titled Immigration Law Implication, dated March 3, shows that acting CEO Musa Zwane confirmed to the board that only one team member from Seabury has the requisite “short-term work permit”, which, according to Section 11 (2), allows foreign nationals to engage in substantive work.

The memorandum stated that several members of Seabury have ordinary tourism or vacation visas, which only allow for attendance of meetings or conferences and not execution of any substantive work.

“From information available and provided to SAA, it appears that the consultants have section 11 (1) permits, which does not allow any person to conduct any substantive work and in special circumstances be used to attend meetings or conferences, but is intended or issued for ordinary visitors.

“In this instance their continued work for SAA, albeit on behalf of the consultant, is in contravention of South African immigration laws,” read the SAA internal memorandum.

The memorandum added: “SAA is deemed an employer and bears the liability in the event of a contravention of the Immigration Act.”

The internal memorandum was circulated a few hours after Satawu had accused the airline in writing of violating the Immigration Act.

Satawu addressed the letter to Zwane, general manager human resources Mbongeni Manqele, and copied it to SAA board chairperson Dudu Myeni and former minister of home affairs Malusi Gigaba.

Satawu said Gigaba did not respond to them or address the issue.

SAA acknowledged in its internal memorandum that it was violating the immigration laws, and informed the union the matter would be investigated.

In its letter, Satawu demanded to know why Seabury workers were being allowed access to SAA premises without work permits.

Satawu national sector coordinator for aviation Matthew Ramosie said it “clearly undermines the laws of this country, which includes among others labour laws.

“Our understanding is that before these individuals can work in this country, a work permit application is supposed to be done in our embassy in the US.

“Satawu is greatly concerned and seeks your intervention in making sure that these individuals’ employment is terminated with immediate effect until they have work permits.”

After Satawu’s intervention, SAA’s legal advisor recommended these workers return to their home country immediately.

SAA then recommended that they obtain a work permit in their home country prior to coming to South Africa to execute the contract.

SAA also said it would send a formal notification to Seabury, but the airline will “exercise and reserve its legal and contractual rights in so far as this contravention amounts to a breach of terms and conditions of its contract with the consultant”.

Satawu informed The Citizen that the non-compliant workers are rotated with others, who also don’t have proper work permits.

“Depending on the duration of their visitors’ permits, a team that does not have work permits will be allowed to work for a week or two at SAA premises.

“The same team will go back to their home country and will then be replaced by another team that does not have work permits,” said Ramosie.

South African Cabin Crew Association treasurer Gift Bilankulu and general secretary Mpho Moikangoa said Seabury’s credibility is questionable.

They alleged there had been the same scenario in 2008.

Bilankulu said: “We want to know why the department of home affairs and SAA even allowed them to come back and work in South Africa without proper documentation.

“How can home affairs allow people who were working illegally to come back again.

“Even if they now followed the proper procedures, they were guilty so they can’t be allowed to come back without penalising them.

“We want to know what happened.”

SAA is deemed an employer and bears the liability