Latest news with #EmploymentEquityAct
The South African
4 days ago
- Business
- The South African
Stricter BEE quotas for South African businesses just 45 days away
New, stricter BEE quotas in South Africa dictate that all workforces must, 'reflect the racial, gender and disability makeup of the population.' This is as stipulated in the latest Employment Equity Amendment Act, which came into effect in 2025. As such, the Department of Employment and Labour has been hosting workshops all around the country to get employers up to speed. Moreover, the department has warned that any South African businesses that don't comply with the new BEE quotas will face censure. The IMF and World Bank has called Employment Equity 'well-meaning but flawed' in a South African context. Image: File The Labour Department's new BEE quotas come into effect in just 45 days' time, on Monday 1 September 2025. Amendments to the Employment Equity Act require percentage-based quotas on businesses across 18 different sectors. And employers have five years (2030) to meet said targets. Each businesses' workforce should be made up certain percentages of 'designated groups,' reports BusinessTech . These groups are made up of: Black African, coloured, Indian, women and the disabled. Amendments to the Employment Equity Act come into effect in 45 days' time. Image: File According to the Labour Department's 2030 BEE quotas, all businesses employing more than 50 people are considered 'designated employers' under the new laws. As such, these businesses must have Employment Equity Plans that outline their five-year strategy. Businesses with less than 50 employees are exempt from these stricter BEE quotas. However, several business groups are not happy and have banded together to challenge the stricter BEE quotas in court. They are unhappy with the following issues: Government failed to consult with public and private stakeholders. New sectoral targets differ greatly from previous versions. Quotas within the new BEE quotas are arbitrary and irrational No economic impact studies were conducted to determine the effect of these laws. The stricter BEE quotas laws are unconstitutional in that they go against the ideals of non-racialism, equality and justice. Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1. Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X and Bluesky for the latest news.
IOL News
10-07-2025
- Business
- IOL News
NEASA and Sakeliga file urgent court bid to halt employment equity quotas
The National Employers Association of South Africa (NEASA) and Sakeliga have filed an urgent application in the Gauteng High Court In a joint statement issued to the media late on Thursday, the two groups argued that the quotas were introduced without proper consultation and failed to comply with legal and constitutional requirements. IOL previously reported that the government plans to introduce new employment equity targets under the amended Employment Equity Act (EEAA). These targets apply to 18 key sectors and require certain employers, particularly in senior roles, to align their workforce with the country's racial and gender demographics. The National Employers Association of South Africa (NEASA) and Sakeliga have filed an urgent application in the Gauteng High Court seeking to interdict the implementation of the Employment Equity sectoral quotas. "The Minister did not act in accordance with the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA), as she failed to adhere to the prescriptions of Section 15A of the EEA prior to the setting and publishing of the 2025 sectoral numerical quotas. This renders her actions unlawful and invalid". Earlier this year IOL also reported Minister of Employment and Labour, Nkosazana Meth, defended the sectoral quotas and criticised opposition to the reforms. She also accused the Democratic Alliance (DA), which has also launched a court challenge against the quotas, of seeking to maintain the status quo. "The DA's challenge seeks to disrupt efforts aimed at achieving equitable representation and maintaining the inherently unfair status quo. By opposing these amendments, the DA is actively sabotaging the transformation goals that have been pursued since the end of the apartheid era". NEASA and Sakeliga further argued that the quotas were 'irrational and arbitrary,' failing to consider the diverse circumstances across sectors, including differences in skills availability and regional demographics. The two groups also pointed out that the final quotas 'differ drastically' from earlier drafts published in 2023 and 2024 but were never republished for renewed public comment as required by law. "The quotas disregard South Africa's constitutional stipulations on non-racialism, equality before the law, and administrative justice". IOL News Get your news on the go, click here to join the IOL News WhatsApp channel.
IOL News
10-07-2025
- Business
- IOL News
NEASA and Sakeliga file urgent court bid to halt employment equity quotas
The National Employers Association of South Africa (NEASA) and Sakeliga have filed an urgent application in the Gauteng High Court In a joint statement issued to the media late on Thursday, the two groups argued that the quotas were introduced without proper consultation and failed to comply with legal and constitutional requirements. IOL previously reported that the government plans to introduce new employment equity targets under the amended Employment Equity Act (EEAA). These targets apply to 18 key sectors and require certain employers, particularly in senior roles, to align their workforce with the country's racial and gender demographics. The National Employers Association of South Africa (NEASA) and Sakeliga have filed an urgent application in the Gauteng High Court seeking to interdict the implementation of the Employment Equity sectoral quotas. "The Minister did not act in accordance with the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA), as she failed to adhere to the prescriptions of Section 15A of the EEA prior to the setting and publishing of the 2025 sectoral numerical quotas. This renders her actions unlawful and invalid". Earlier this year IOL also reported Minister of Employment and Labour, Nkosazana Meth, defended the sectoral quotas and criticised opposition to the reforms. She also accused the Democratic Alliance (DA), which has also launched a court challenge against the quotas, of seeking to maintain the status quo. "The DA's challenge seeks to disrupt efforts aimed at achieving equitable representation and maintaining the inherently unfair status quo. By opposing these amendments, the DA is actively sabotaging the transformation goals that have been pursued since the end of the apartheid era". NEASA and Sakeliga further argued that the quotas were 'irrational and arbitrary,' failing to consider the diverse circumstances across sectors, including differences in skills availability and regional demographics. The two groups also pointed out that the final quotas 'differ drastically' from earlier drafts published in 2023 and 2024 but were never republished for renewed public comment as required by law. "The quotas disregard South Africa's constitutional stipulations on non-racialism, equality before the law, and administrative justice". IOL News Get your news on the go, click here to join the IOL News WhatsApp channel.
IOL News
10-07-2025
- Business
- IOL News
Neasa and Sakeliga mount legal challenge against employment regulations
The National Employers' Association of South Africa (Neasa) and Sakeliga have jointly filed an urgent application for an interdict against the implementation of the 2025 Employment Equity sectoral numerical quotas. The National Employers' Association of South Africa (Neasa) and Sakeliga have jointly filed an urgent application for an interdict against the implementation of the 2025 Employment Equity sectoral numerical quotas and accompanying administrative regulations, as well as calling for the judicial review and setting aside thereof. The Minister of Employment and Labour, Dr Nomakhosazana Meth published the employment equity regulations of April 15. These quotas require employers with 50 or more employees to restructure their entire workforce to reflect national gender and racial demographics of the country. The application challenges the legality and constitutionality of the newly introduced employment equity framework. The legal challenge firstly aims for a judicial review of the procedural acts of the Minister in setting the quotas, which the organisations alledge were fraught with irregularities and inadequacies in process. Secondly, the challenge also entails a constitutional challenge of the substance of relevant sections in the Employment Equity Act (EEA), which allow for and facilitate the setting and enforcement of these quotas. In the founding affidavit, Neasa and Sakeliga argue that the Minister did not act in accordance with the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, as she failed to adhere to the prescriptions of Section 15A of the EEA prior to the setting and publishing of the 2025 sectoral numerical quotas. They claim this renders Meth's actions unlawful and invalid. The court papers, filed in the Gauteng Division of the High Court, also contend the Minister failed to properly identify, and gazette for public comment, the 18 national economic sectors for purposes of setting quotas, as required by Section 15A(4). Neasa and Sakeliga also argue that there was not proper consultation. Instead, they say stakeholders across numerous sectors were either not invited or not given adequate notice of virtual 'consultations', all of which were limited to only 1 000 attendees. "Some stakeholders were given the final quotas only hours before these so-called consultations, with most consultations allowing less than 15 minutes for feedback and discussions. The Minister completely neglected to consult with employees in the economic sectors who will be severely affected by the quotas. Consultation in this manner is woefully inadequate for the Minister to have come to a reasonable, non-arbitrary decision in respect of the quotas," they said. Neasa and Sakeliga also say the final 2025 quotas differ drastically from the earlier draft quotas published in 2023 and 2024 respectively. Despite this, they were never published for renewed public comment as required by section 15A(4) of the Act. This is a legal requirement and failure to adhere to it renders the quotas invalid. They also argue that the quotas are arbitary and do not take into account the nature, circumstances and challenges of each sector. "The Minister failed to obtain and consider a comprehensive socio-economic impact study on the consequences of introducing sectoral quotas... This cannot be rationally introduced as a legal requirement without a proper assessment of its socio-economic impacts," the legal challenge maintains. The second leg of the legal challenge questions the constitutionality and legality of the concept of forced ministerial quotas, which will be comprehensively argued at a later stage. "Unless the Court intervenes and grants the interim relief sought, every employer that employs 50 employees or more, in every sector of the economy, will be required by legislation to prepare and implement employment equity plans to make their workforce conform to the 2025 quotas," they said. "This filing marks the next important step in preventing these impossible, irrational, and harmful employment quotas for the benefit of employers, employees, and all communities across the country." Attempts to get comment from the Department of Employment and Labour by the time of going to print were unsuccessful. BUSINESS REPORT
Daily Maverick
26-06-2025
- Politics
- Daily Maverick
DA FedEx to meet after Ramaphosa axes party's deputy trade and industry minister
The DA has called Trade, Industry and Competition Deputy Minister Andrew Whitfield's removal from Cabinet 'a very serious development'. President Cyril Ramaphosa is reconfiguring his Government of National Unity (GNU) Cabinet, removing Trade, Industry and Competition Deputy Minister Andrew Whitfield (DA) from his position on Thursday, 26 June. 'The Presidency can confirm that in terms of section 93(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, President Cyril Ramaphosa has removed the Hon. Andrew Whitfield, MP from the position of Deputy Minister for Trade, Industry and Competition. The president has thanked the former deputy minister for the time he served in the role,' Presidency spokesperson Vincent Magwenya told Daily Maverick. He added that he was, however, 'not aware of a wholesale Cabinet reshuffle'. Contacted for comment, DA national spokesperson Willie Aucamp called Whitfield's removal 'a very serious development'. 'The Federal Executive of the DA will meet to discuss this matter, and we will communicate our position in due course,' he added. Asked to comment on why the president had removed Whitfield, Magwenya declined to answer. Asked why he was removed from his position, Whitfield replied: 'Good question – only the president can answer that question'. The bargaining of positions in Cabinet was a key issue before the formation of the GNU, with parties arguing they should be based on their share of votes. There have been increasing calls from members of the ANC to act against the DA for going against the ANC on various issues, including the Employment Equity Act, National Health Insurance, the Expropriation Act and the Basic Education Laws Amendment Act. According to a News24 report on Thursday morning, it is understood that the reshuffle was triggered by the fiasco involving Higher Education and Training Minister Nobuhle Nkabane's contentious appointment of chairs of Sector Education and Training Authority (Seta) boards. Nkabane's appointment last month of several ANC associates as chairpersons to Seta boards sparked an immediate furore from MPs who demanded answers in Parliament, as well as calls for her to be removed from her position. Among the contentious appointees were Ramaphosa's allies, former KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) premier Nomusa Dube-Ncube and former ANC deputy chairperson in KZN Mike Mabuyakhulu, along with Buyambo Mantashe, the son of Mineral and Petroleum Resources Minister Gwede Mantashe, Daily Maverick's Siyabonga Goni reported. The minister later withdrew the appointments 'in response to public concerns'. She announced a call for fresh nominations, adding that an independent panel would also be established to process the nominations and recommend candidates. However, she initially refused to disclose the names of the independent panel members. This month, Ramaphosa requested that Nkabane report to him about her behaviour in Parliament and questionable Seta board appointments. At a press conference on the outcomes of the Cabinet meeting of 25 June, on Thursday morning, Minister in the Presidency Khumbudzo Ntshavheni said she could not answer questions about the president's Cabinet reshuffle. 'The decision to appoint and to remove or reshuffle ministers or deputy ministers – that is the sole prerogative of the president. He exercised that without consulting anyone, but that is his sole decision, so I cannot answer the question on the reshuffle,' Ntshavheni said. DM
