Labour on Employment Equity
Employment Equity: Labour Department flexes the muscle 12 November 2007
The Labour Department has taken Comair Limited to court for breaching provisions of the Employment Equity Act. Labour Director-General Vanguard Mkosana filed the application with the Johannesburg Labour Court after several warnings against the airline company, which has since been given until Tuesday, 20 November to respond.
According to the application, Comair has been found to be in breach of the following provisions of the Employment Equity Act:
* Section 20 of Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998, by failing to prepare and implement an Employment Equity Plan which would achieve reasonable progress towards employment equity in the respondent's workplace between the periods 2000 to September 2007.
* Section 21 (2) (3) (4) and (5), by submitting reports to the first applicant which were not based on any existing Employment Equity Plan of the respondent and/or submitting falsified reports.
* Section 21 (3) of Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998, by failing to submit a report to the Director-General on the first working day of October 2007.
* Section 24 of Employment Equity Act in that it failed to assign one or more senior managers to take responsibility for monitoring and implementing an Employment Equity Plan from 2000 to 26 March 2007.
* Section 26 of Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998, by failing to keep records in respect of its workforce, its Employment Equity Plan and other records relevant for purposes of compliance with the Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998.
In the application, Dr Mkosana further ordered the respondent to comply with the provisions of section 20, 21, 23, 25 and 26 of Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998. Comair is being ordered to pay a fine of R900 000 as prescribed by schedule 1 of Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998 and to pay the costs of the application.
The company is required to file notice of intention to oppose and an answering affidavit within 10 days from the date the application was served. If no intention to oppose and an answering affidavit were filed as required in the notice of motion, the application might be heard in the respondent's absence and an order for costs might be sought against the respondent.
Last edited by Dave A; 14-Nov-07 at 01:43 PM.