UNIFORMS: STALLING OVER LITIGATION SLAMMED
Competition Tribunal suggests commission ‘shirking’ its responsibility by not prosecuting excessive pricing cases
THE COMPETITION Tribunal has suggested the Competition Commission was possibly “shirking” its responsibilities in terms of the Competition Act by not prosecuting excessive pricing cases related to school uniforms.
Enver Daniels, the chairperson of the tribunal panel hearing four school uniform cases, said yesterday that it appeared the commission had steered away from litigation in these matters, simply because of costs.
“If you are trying to avoid costly and lengthy litigation in these cases, aren’t you shirking your responsibilities in terms of the act when in fact the cost of school uniforms inhibits a child’s access to education?
“The issue of school uniform prices has occupied our history… for many decades, even before the advent of our democracy,” he said.
Daniels made these comments during a hearing where the commission was seeking confirmation of settlement agreements with four private schools.
The commission alleged St Andrew’s School for Girls, AdvTech, listed Curro Holdings and Inspired Schools, which trade as Reddam House and Redford House, had contravened the Competition Act by concluding exclusive agreements with a school uniform supplier.
The schools did not admit to any contraventions of the act and the commission was not seeking to impose any administrative penalty.
Namhla Pakade, appearing for the commission, said the four settlement agreements collectively were applicable to 229 schools.
In terms of the draft settlement agreements reached with the four schools, they agreed to seek ways in which their uniforms could be standardised to enable parents to buy certain parts from general retailers.
In addition, the schools committed to contract school uniform suppliers through a transparent and competitive bidding process with the aim of improving competition, possibly resulting in price reductions.
The tribunal postponed all four cases.
Daniels said the tribunal panel wanted to know the rationale for not investigating the entities involved properly. “Judging from the complaints, even the parents who are able to send their children to these private schools have difficulty with the cost of uniforms.
“To contextualise, Curro is listed on the stock exchange and I think it’s controlled by PSG. These are substantial operations and companies.
“Weren’t you obliged to investigate Curro and the relationship with Grit (Procurement Solutions) and look at what the impact was on the learners and the parents at those particular schools?” he asked.
Daniels said they would issue a directive explaining what information should be provided to allow the tribunal to properly consider the settlements.
Hardin Ratshisusu, the deputy commissioner at the Competition Commission, said the commission had been flooded with complaints each time there was a price increase at a particular school. Ratshisusu said the commission’s intention was not to prosecute these cases but “if left with no option, we will do so”. “We have a case-by-case approach to prosecution, but for a first-time contravention there is no penalty.”
Ratshisusu stressed the commission was satisfied the settlement agreements would unlock the market for more players to supply school uniforms and lead to some level of competition, which ultimately led to reduced prices.