We didn’t compile equity plan – witness

CERTAIN races are being given preference at certain job levels within correctional services, a lawyer has charged in the court clash over the department’s employment equity plan.

Citing an example, advocate Martin Brassey, SC, representing the applicants – 10 correctional services employees and trade union Solidarity – said that at level three (one of the lower salary levels), white and Indian people got preference over the black and coloured race groups.

According to him, this amounted to “race-norming” and “gender-norming” within each level of the department’s workforce.

He put this to witness Themba Magagula, regional head of the department’s human resources in the Western Cape, saying that the preference of whites at level three could not be as a consequence of the position they found themselves in during apartheid as they were not the victims of discrimination.

He raised concerns that giving preference to whites at this level under the department’s scheme did not involve the rectification of past injustices but was rather “concerned with something else”.

“What we are concerned about here is race-norming and gender-norming in each level of the departmental workforce,” Brassey said.

Magagula said the plan addressed all the department’s job levels, but he did not understand Brassey’s question over race and gender-norming.

The applicants are challenging the constitutional validity of the department’s employment equity plan, arguing that the targets should be in line with provincial, and not national, demographics.

Earlier in Magagula’s testimony, he came out in defence of the employment equity plan when advocate Brian Lecoge, acting for the department, asked him about the allegations that the plan was being applied “rigidly” and that it was “inflexible”.

Magagula listed

several instances – spanning 2010 to 2013 – where the department had deviated from the plan.

Deviations could be effected only by the national commissioner, who, within this period, had approved the deviations of several coloured white and coloured job applicants.

Under cross-examination, Brassey also questioned him over what was considered when shortlisting candidates.

Magagula said that prior to 2011 they hadn’t looked at equity targets when creating a shortlist, only job criteria. Head office had then sent out a requirement that they had to take into account employment equity when shortlisting.

They had received a circular from head office in June, 2011, instructing them to use national targets rather than regional targets, which they had previously used.

The region was further instructed to draft their own plan showing how it would implement the national targets.

He added, however, that “to be honest, we did not compile those plans”.

A regional employment equity forum (within the department) had been meant to draft the plan but there had been “differences” between the 15 or 16 members on the forum.

Lithakazi Hlaza, the department’s regional manager of employment equity, said the forum’s last sitting had been in 2011. Some members had challenged the equity plan and they had not reached an agreement regarding the equity targets.

The hearing continues.