Skip to main content

Article 13/2026

Employment equity compliance certificates will be issued if a designated employer achieves the annual and eventual sectoral targets by 2030.  Such compliance certificates will also be issued if there are justifiable reasonable grounds for non-compliance in terms of Regulation 16(5) of Government Gazette 52515 of 15 April 2025 (Gazette 2).  If these grounds exist, an employer will therefore be able to justify why it deviated from its employment equity targets. 

What are these justifiable reasonable grounds for not complying with employment equity targets?

_____________________________________

Regulation 16(5) of Gazette 2 contains the following grounds:

  • insufficient recruitment opportunities – the lack of recruitment opportunities simply means the designated employer has been deprived of the opportunity of filling identified positions so as to ensure compliance with the employment equity plan targets
  • insufficient promotion opportunities – in short, a flat, horizontal organisational structure does not create the same promotion opportunities as a vertical organisational structure
  • insufficient target individuals from designated groups with relevant formal qualifications, prior learning, relevant experience or the capacity to acquire, within a reasonable time period, the ability to do the job – employment equity is not about filling positions from designated groups, but filling such positions with suitably qualified people from such designated groups (at all occupational levels in the workplace). There is no duty on a designated employer to fill positions unless the incumbents are indeed suitably qualified people in terms of s20(3), read with s20(4), of the EEA
  • impact of CCMA award/court order
  • transfer of businesses
  • mergers/acquisitions
  • impact of economic conditions on the employer

The harsh reality is that no business will be in a recruitment and employment mode if fertile economic conditions do not exist.

We think that everyone understands that an employer is vicariously liable for the wrong committed (an act or omission) by its employee during the course/scope/sphere of employment/engagement in any activity reasonably incidental to it.

But, what is the extent of an employer’s vicarious liability where the employee commits a wrong on his or her own volition?

What is the content of traditional consensus to indicate that an agreement exists between an employer and an employee?

If, on the traditional theory of consensus, a party fails to prove an agreement upon which it relies, with reference to Sonap Petroleum SA (Pty) Ltd v Pappadogianis 1992 (3) SA 234 (A), on what basis can a finding be made that quasi-mutual assent exists, founded on the approach that a party is precluded from denying the existence of an agreement based on their own conduct and the circumstances?

What does the three-fold enquiry entail to determine the presence of quasi-mutual assent?

In determining whether an agreement has been reached in the absence of traditional consensus, but on the basis of quasi-mutual assent, what is the extent of the duty on the party wishing to rely on such an agreement to, on the basis of reasonableness, enquire as to the contradictions that exist in the position of the other party so contained in correspondence?

Where do delictual claims fit into dispute resolution options applicable to employment disputes?