Latest news with #Neasa
The Citizen
6 days ago
- Business
- The Citizen
Urgent court action aims to halt employment equity quotas
Business organisations say government's new race and gender targets are procedurally flawed and unconstitutional. The court papers highlight what appear to be substantive procedural flaws in the setting of race quotas. Picture: Moneyweb Sakeliga and the National Employers Association of SA (Neasa) filed an urgent Gauteng High Court application this week challenging race and gender targets under the Employment Equity Amendment Act (EEAA), which became law in January 2025. The act sets hiring quotas for 18 economic sectors, from agriculture and mining to transport and construction. 'The application challenges the legality and constitutionality of the newly introduced employment equity framework, which introduces rigid race and gender quotas across 18 economic sectors on the top four occupational levels,' according to a statement by the business organisations. These quotas, formally published in April 2025, require employers with 50 or more employees to restructure their entire workforce to reflect the national gender and racial demographics of the country, or face dire consequences. The EEA defines 'designated groups' as blacks, women and people with disabilities, and is intended to increase their representation in the workplace. ALSO READ: State sued over estate agent BEE plan The challenge involves two steps: The first asks the court for a judicial review of the 'procedurally flawed' manner in which the minister went about setting the quotas; and The second part, yet to be launched, attacks the constitutionality of the quotas under the relevant parts of the EEA. Neasa and Sakeliga argue that Minister of Employment and Labour Nomakhosazana Meth skirted the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (Paja) by not applying the relevant sections of the EEA in arriving at the race quotas. The policing of the act and its associated regulations will require 10 000 labour inspectors by the Department of Employment and Labour. The act has received pushback from business, the DA and trade union Solidarity. 'When the legislation was passed, we informed the government that we would bring an urgent application to set it aside as they had not done proper consultation, as required by law,' says Gerhard Papenfus, chief executive of Neasa. ALSO READ: Employment Equity Act amendments to come into effect on 1 January 2025 'They then started consulting, but with whom? 'They chose 18 industries. The act says you must first determine what these industries are. You can't just decide this on your own,' he says. 'On top of that, the consultations took place over seven days. They scheduled for each and every consultation for one and a half hours, allowing just 15 minutes for questions. That's not consultation.' Neasa also criticises the way industries were demarcated. For example, manufacturing – including steel, plastics, agro-processing, clothing and chemicals and other sub-sectors – was treated as a single industry. ALSO READ: Five-year Employment Equity targets: What must each sector aim for? Substantive flaws The court papers highlight what appear to be substantive procedural flaws in the setting of race quotas. Failure to identify and gazette economic sectors: The identification of 18 national economic sectors for purposes of setting quotas was not carried out as required under the EEA, which meant there were no sectors existing in law with whom the minister could consult. It further resulted in different sub-sectors with different characteristics being lumped together under a one-size-fits-all quota. Improper consultation: Inadequate notice was given for online consultations and these were limited to 1 000 attendees, with just 15 minutes allocated to questions. The minister neglected to consult with employees in the economic sectors who will be severely affected by the quotas. No lawful publication: The two business organisations say the final 2025 quotas differ radically from the earlier draft quotas published in 2023 and 2024, and were never published for renewed public comment as required under the act. This is a legal requirement and failure to adhere to it renders the quotas invalid. Quotas are arbitrary: The minister set irrational and arbitrary quotas that do not take into account the nature, circumstances and challenges of each sector. No consideration was given to the pool of skills available in each sector, the natural gender disparity in certain sectors, or the difference in racial demographics across provinces in SA. No socio-economic impact assessment performed: The regulations are ultimately aimed at compelling the workforce of every single designated employer in SA, in every sector, on every occupational level, to conform to the racial and gender demographic profile of the country's economically active population. This cannot be rationally introduced as a legal requirement without a proper assessment of its socio-economic impacts. Violation of The Constitution: The quotas disregard South Africa's constitutional stipulations on non-racialism, equality before the law, and administrative justice. Businesses will be forced to spend vast amounts of time and resources complying with these employment equity quotas, say Neasa and Sakeliga in a statement. ALSO READ: DA legal challenge to Employment Equity sparks political divide 'Individuals will be employed or not employed, and promoted or not promoted, based on unlawful quotas. Employers will restructure and make other permanent changes to their workforce and corporate structuring, employ new employees and forego opportunities and take on the expense that this involves, all based on unlawful quotas. 'This [court] 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.' Papenfus was part of a delegation of Afrikaner leaders to visit the US White House in June, during which the US administration set out a number of preconditions for normalising relations with SA, including exempting US businesses from BEE requirements, classifying farm attacks as a priority crime, no land expropriation without compensation and an unequivocal condemnation by the ANC of the 'Kill the boer, kill the farmer' slogan. Law firm Norton Rose Fulbright has filed a separate court challenge to the Legal Sector Code – which sets firm-level targets of 50% black ownership, voting rights and executive management positions within five years – arguing that these targets are unrealistic given that blacks made up just 38% of the profession in 2023. It argues that the introduction of the code was arbitrary, unlawful and procedurally flawed. This article was republished from Moneyweb. Read the original here.
IOL News
6 days ago
- 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
07-07-2025
- Business
- Daily Maverick
The SA metal industry faces existential crises across several fronts
The domestic steel dispute takes a new turn as the Government Gazette reveals punitive 52% duties that could reshape South Africa's industrial landscape. Oh, and we're running out of scrap metal. Gerhard Papenfus, the CEO of the National Employers' Association of South Africa (Neasa), has perfected the sweet science of switching styles between lobbying Washington officials about farm murders and Black Economic Empowerment policies, and throwing legal power punches at government trade bureaucrats over what he calls an assault on the steel industry. It's a shifting stance that perfectly captures the contradictions of South Africa's current economic moment: lobbying foreign governments for business-friendly policies while simultaneously battling your own government's trade interventions at home. Papenfus recently returned from the US, saying that the stateside officials believe the South African government is 'not listening' and 'playing games'. It's a diplomatic dance that speaks to the growing international wariness about South Africa's economic trajectory. Taking on Itac In April, Neasa opened its fight against the International Trade Administration Commission of South Africa (Itac), threatening urgent legal action if the trade body proceeded with what Papenfus calls 'the largest tariff, duty, and import measures review in Itac's 22-year history'. In his opening volley, Papenfus called out the 609 tariff codes across more than four chapters, covering everything from primary steel and stainless steel to steel pipes, wire, tools, cutlery and even padlocks. 'No meaningful representations can be made by any affected stakeholder,' Papenfus argued, highlighting the review's vagueness. 'No informed, substantive or tangible technical representations could be made without more information regarding the precise interventions planned, as no percentages, quota numbers, permit requirements, surveillance rules and regulations, standards specifications or rebate details are provided.' Not entirely missing the mark Okay, he had a point; Itac typically takes 27 months per singular review covering only a small number of tariff codes, with some reviews dragging on for more than 50 months. Yet the Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition has set what he (Papenfus) rightly calls an 'impossible turnaround timeframe' of June 2025 for this mammoth undertaking. 'How it plans on performing this earth-shattering number of reviews' is the question that has Neasa and industry players scratching their heads. While Itac's review process unfolds, the government has already shown its hand with provisional safeguard duties that landed in a recent Government Gazette. The 52% counterpunch The numbers are crazy: a 52.34% provisional payment on specific flat-rolled steel products, imposed until 13 January 2026. The targeted products include aluminium-zinc alloy coated steel of various thicknesses, with an extensive list of countries excluded from the duties. Notably absent from the exemption list are major steel-producing nations such as China, though the Gazette's exclusions cover everyone from Albania to Zimbabwe. This isn't just trade policy; it's industrial warfare. The 52% duty in effect prices out imports, creating a deep moat around domestic steel production. But protection comes at a cost, and that cost is ultimately borne by downstream industries and consumers. Scrap metal headache Adding another layer of complexity is a growing dependence on ferrous scrap metal for green steel production. Government implemented the Price Preference System in September 2013 and an export tax in August 2021 to preserve this finite resource for domestic use. Amit Saini, a director at electric steel-producing mini mill Coega Steels, sketches the scenario: South Africa 'cannot afford to toy with the existing policies that are already 'only just' managing to preserve scrap stocks'. Why? Because the secondary steel manufacturing sector has an installed production capacity of 2.5 million to 2.8 million tonnes annually, requiring 2.7 million to 3 million tonnes of ferrous scrap. With new electrified mini mills coming online in Nigel and Durban, demand is projected to soar to 4 million tonnes by 2026. Saini warns that 'tinkering with the current regulations would put thousands of jobs at risk', a statement recognising that the country's 13 facilities currently employ more than 5,000 workers. The fix is radical: 'an outright ban on the export of ferrous scrap'. What this means for you Steel will cost more: The 52% duties mean higher prices for imported steel – and those costs will trickle down to products such as cars, appliances, construction materials and even cutlery. Local industries could feel squeezed: While steelmakers might celebrate, downstream manufacturers (which need affordable steel) could face higher input costs and job pressures. Scrap metal stays home: Expect tighter scrap metal controls to keep supply for local 'green steel' production. That's good for the environment, but risky for scrap exporters. Jobs on the line: Thousands of jobs depend on a delicate balance. Changes to scrap export rules or runaway steel costs could push some factories to the brink. SA looks more protectionist: Heavy tariffs and export bans signal a more closed-off trade stance, which could affect foreign investment and global competitiveness. Staying on trend The global context supports this approach. The European Union will ban ferrous scrap exports by 27 countries from May 2027, and the GMK Centre predicts that 'scrap prices will be regulated through trade restrictions' in local markets as worldwide sea-borne trade volumes decrease. What emerges from this industrial policy maze is a picture of a government struggling to balance competing priorities. Protect domestic steel production through punitive tariffs, preserve scrap metal for green steel initiatives and somehow maintain competitiveness in global markets. Papenfus frames Itac's review as 'a concerted effort to search every nook and cranny of the steel industry framework to find possible ways of suffocating it through regulatory red tape and additional charges'. It's a view that reflects broader business frustrations with government intervention. Yet the alternative – allowing cheap imports to flood the market while critical scrap metal resources are exported – carries its own risks. As Saini warns, 'deindustrialisation is a real possibility' if current policies are abandoned. In the trenches The steel wars represent more than industry disputes; they're a microcosm of South Africa's broader economic challenges. For now, Papenfus and his industry allies are preparing for a legal battle, armed with complaints about process, timelines and the sheer scale of Itac's ambitions. Whether they can halt the regulatory juggernaut remains to be seen. It's a fight with no easy victory, only costly compromises and the constant threat of unintended consequences. The 52% duties may protect domestic producers today, but they also signal a country increasingly willing to wall itself off from global markets. DM
Irish Examiner
21-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Irish Examiner
'She definitely didn't lick it off the ground': Páidí O'Sé's granddaughter Fiadh, 10, crowned world Irish dancing champion
They say an ounce of breeding is better than a stone of feeding and so it has proven as Páidí Ó Sé's granddaughter Fiadh has become a world Irish dancing champion at the age of 10. Daughter of Páidí's eldest daughter Neasa and husband Pádraig, Fiadh claimed the discipline's highest prize in the U11 category in the Oireachtas Rince na Cruinne in Dublin last month. The Fitzgeralds moved to London from Kildare in 2021 and since then Fiadh has won a host of honours at South England regional and Irish national championships before last month's greatest achievement. 'Fiadh had been doing a bit of dancing at home with a guy called Keith Brett and when we moved over, an Irish dancing club was the only thing she wanted to find,' explains Neasa. Fiadh Fitzgerald with her trophy. 'We found a place in Ealing called Scoil Rince Céim Óir, she started from the beginning with them, moved through the grades quite quickly and qualified for the worlds last year in the south-eastern region. "The worlds took place in the National Convention Centre at Easter and she won, which was great because she hasn't been dancing for very long, only since six or seven. 'She now dances three or four times a week in the studio with her teacher Hilary Joyce Owens, a Galway woman. Not that she forgot about Ireland but being able to go dancing meant she wasn't as lonely or as homesick. "She's become very close to the teachers and students and it was a big part of her settling into life in London.' Needless to say, Neasa sees plenty of her late, great father in Fiadh. 'Oh, stop. She's very driven. She could throw her hand to anything and she just has that fire in the belly. She definitely didn't lick it off the ground.'
IOL News
07-05-2025
- Business
- IOL News
South Africa considers increased import duties on renewable energy components
The Department of Trade, Industry and Competition is reviewing import duties on key components used in renewable energy projects Image: Henk Kruger/Independent Newspapers The Department of Trade, Industry and Competition is reviewing import duties on key components used in renewable energy projects as part of a broader strategy to drive local production and reduce reliance on foreign supply chains. In a government gazette published on April 17 2025, the International Trade Administration Commission (ITAC) highlighted that South Africa's domestic demand trajectory, raw material resources, technological capacity, and manufacturing expertise position the country to potentially become a major player in both regional and international renewable energy supply chains. The proposed change, as outlined by ITAC, would involve increasing customs duties on components essential for solar, wind, and battery storage technologies. These proposals have also been published for public comment. "With careful calibration, an updated tariff structure could boost demand for, and enhance the competitive supply of, locally manufactured products and components. This shift would also unlock new export market opportunities and strengthen the competitiveness of the local renewable energy value chain," ITAC noted. The National Employers Association of South Africa (Neasa) has pointed out that, if the proposed tariff increases are implemented, the duty liability on these products could rise from R371 million to R7.2 billion, based on 2024 import data. "This increase is connected not only to current capacity but also to the possible future capacity to produce locally. If implemented, this would raise the duty liability on these products from R371 million to R7.2 billion," Neasa stated.
