BY   Ivan Israelstam, Chief Executive of Labour Law Management Consulting. He may be contacted on (011) 888-7944 or 0828522973 or on e-mail address: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Go to:

The Employment Equity Act (EEA) makes it compulsory for designated employers to implement affirmative action AA. This means that most employers are required to employ, train and retain the services of employees belonging to previously disadvantaged population groups being black, female and disabled people. The EEA defines black people as “Africans, Coloureds and Indians”. Based on this definition Chinese people do not qualify under the heading of affirmative action employees. This is illogical and unfair because, under the apartheid regime Chinese people were severely discriminated against and are therefore previously disadvantaged.

As a result the Chinese community, some years ago, took this issue to the Pretoria High Court which decided that Chinese South Africans are to be included in the definition of black people for purposes of BEE legislation and the EEA. As Chinese people were unfairly discriminated against historically their omission from the legislation appears to have been more for political than for reasons of logic or justice.  

The EEA requires designated employers to strive to ensure that the demography (population ratios) of their organisations mirrors the demography of the society in which the organisation operates. For example, if the population of Gauteng is 80% black then designated employers

need to do everything possible to ensure that there are 80 black people at every level of their organisations including top management.

While the law does not expect employers to fire all their able white males from key positions to make way for designated groups the EEA does expect employers to fill vacancies with black, female and disabled people until the required demographic levels have been achieved.

While chapter 2 (prohibition of unfair discrimination) and chapter 3 (requirement for AA) of the EEA have similar goals, the way in which each of the two chapters are to be enforced differ. That is, where an employee or job applicant felt unfairly discriminated against he/she could sue the employer in the Labour Court. However, where employees feel that the employer is failing to implement AA they could report the employer to the Director General of Labour.

This apparently clear division of recourse for aggrieved employees has been reinforced by the Labour Court’s decision in the case of Dudley vs City of Cape Town & another (February 2004 Vol. 13 No.7 Contemporary Labour Law page 1). In this case Dudley had been appointed to the post of Interim Manager: Health Services. Later on Dudley applied for a more senior post (Director: City Health) advertised by the municipality. The City appointed a white male into the post despite the facts that Dudley was qualified for the job and the City had the obligation, in terms of its own policies, to implement affirmative action.

Dudley, who was a black female, referred an unfair discrimination dispute to the Labour Court on the grounds that the employer’s failure to implement AA constituted unfair discrimination. The Court found against this claim because, in its view:

  • Failure to implement AA is a matter for the Director General of Labour (DGL) to deal with and not the Labour Court (unless the DGL) refers the matter to the Labour Court after having implemented his/her own enforcement mechanisms)
  • AA is a group-based obligation and not an individual right
  • Both SA’s Constitution and the EEA distinguish between AA and unfair discrimination.

However, in the case of Harmse vs City of Cape Town (February 2004 Vol. 13 No.7 Contemporary Labour Law page 1) the Labour Court found that an individual employee did have recourse directly to the Labour Court on the grounds that failure to implement AA constituted unfair discrimination. This is yet another instance where the courts are unable to agree with each other on key legal issues. In the light of this uncertainty employers are advised to ensure that they implement AA responsibly, that their AA policies are in line with the EEA and that these policies are realistically implementable.

The decision of the Pretoria High Court including Chinese South Africans as AA employees gives employers more opportunity to achieve their AA targets. This decision will therefore be welcomed not only by Chinese people and by those who believe in justice, but also by those employers forced by law to implement affirmative action. This is especially since the legal deadline for the submission by employers of their employment equity reports is only 13 weeks away. As maximum fines for failure to submit these reports start at R900 000,00 for a first offence employers need to get moving now with their AA projects.

To buy our E-book WALKING THE NEW LABOUR LAW TIGHTROPE please contact Ivan via This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or 011-8887944 or 0828522973.