Saccawu-logo

SOUTH AFRICAN COMMERCIAL CATERING AND ALLIED WORKERS UNION




Johannesburg butchery shut down over serious labour and health violations

by | Labour Market News

Meat products found improperly stored during the inspection at a Johannesburg CBD butchery.
Image: Supplied

A Johannesburg inner-city butchery has been shut down after a joint government inspection uncovered a string of labour, health and safety violations, including workers being paid below the national minimum wage, unsafe working conditions and food safety concerns.

Employment and Labour Minister Nomakhosazana Meth, accompanied by Johannesburg Executive Mayor Dada Morero, led a multi-disciplinary compliance operation in the city centre on Friday as part of a broader government crackdown on businesses flouting labour laws and municipal by-laws.

The inspection team found serious contraventions at Siesta MTN Butchery, prompting labour inspectors to issue several prohibition notices under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

Officials identified blocked walkways, exposed electrical distribution boards, inadequate changing facilities for workers and a lack of proper seating, with cashiers reportedly using crates while on duty.

Inspectors also found workers were being paid below the minimum wage and that the employer was not contributing to the Unemployment Insurance Fund (UIF), placing the business in breach of labour legislation.

The operation further uncovered health and safety concerns, including workers initially operating without the required personal protective equipment (PPE), meat products being defrosted on the floor and domestic animals, including cats, being kept inside the building.

As a result of the findings and additional breaches of environmental health regulations, the City of Johannesburg ordered the immediate closure of the butchery.

Speaking during the operation, Meth stressed that compliance with South African labour laws was non-negotiable.

“The laws of the Republic are not a nice-to-have. We all have the responsibility to comply with the law. We want businesses to continue operating and contribute to the economy, however they must comply with the laws of the Republic,” she said.

Meth said the department’s inspections were aimed at both enforcement and education, helping employers understand their legal obligations while protecting workers’ rights.

“Our approach is what we call a carrot and stick approach. We empower and educate businesses, identify areas where they need to improve and issue notices where necessary,” she said.

The inspection team also visited Boxer Superstore, where officials engaged management and workers while assessing compliance with labour legislation, including the Basic Conditions of Employment Act.

Addressing concerns about the employment of foreign nationals, Meth urged businesses to make greater use of South Africa’s available workforce, noting that the department maintains a database of more than seven million registered job seekers.

“We are saying to businesses, open up the space for South Africans. But we are not xenophobic. Foreign nationals who are legally in South Africa have the right to be employed. However, people who are in South Africa legally as visitors or students cannot simply take up employment without the necessary legal permission,” she said.

City officials also inspected whether businesses complied with building regulations and possessed approved building plans.

Morero said the city would continue targeting non-compliant businesses while assisting those willing to meet legal requirements.

“This joint operation with the Department of Employment and Labour is part of our ongoing commitment to reclaim and restore order in the Johannesburg inner city. We will not turn a blind eye to businesses that put workers’ safety and dignity at risk, or that operate outside the law,” he said.

IOL News

Source: https://iol.co.za/news/crime-and-courts/2026-08-21-johannesburg-butchery-shut-down-over-serious-labour-and-health-violations/

New penalties put employers on notice

by | Labour Market News

‘We don’t have to wait for the bill to be passed before those employing illegal foreigners start stressing, but the scary part is in the fines going anywhere from R100 000 to R1m or even more’ – Aadil Wadee, immigration lawyer, Xpatweb.

You can also listen to this podcast on iono.fm here.

JIMMY MOYAHA: The South African Department of Employment and Labour has put forward the Employment Services Amendment Bill that aims to look at how employers are held accountable for the undocumented foreign nationals that they employ.

Currently, Section 38 of the Immigration Act speaks to some penalties that can be imposed on employers that employ undocumented foreign nationals, and the latest proposal is that these penalties be increased in severity.

We’re going to look at this in more detail with senior immigration consultant at Xpatweb, Aadil Wadee. He joins us on the line to see what we make of this. Aadil, good evening, thanks so much for taking the time.

Let’s start with an overview of the current amendment bill that is sitting before parliament for review. Give us an understanding of where we stand with that particular process, what penalties are currently in place, and what is being proposed.

AADIL WADEE: Yes, of course, Jimmy. Thank you so much for having me, and good evening to your listeners as well.

I think the starting point at the moment for a lot of people out there – because there is a lot of talk surrounding this bill at the moment – is we have to remember that, as it currently stands, it is a bill.

It’s currently with the portfolio committee before it gets passed into law, so it’s not finalised yet. But there are a lot of changes that seek to make [conditions for] the employing of foreign nationals in South Africa more stringent.

The part I want to touch on in that – specifically with regard to practising immigration – is the Department of Home Affairs itself.

As we’ve currently seen, the landscape is seeking to make it a little easier to actually mobilise talent into South Africa; so it’s almost a little contradictory on that front itself.

But with the review of this bill and what it seeks to impose, I think the key point for a lot of individuals out there is the new fines which need to be introduced, whereby they’ve set fixed amounts.

Currently, this is governed under Section 38 of the Immigration Act, whereby imposition of either fines or jail time is part of the act itself, but the fines themselves have not been defined in terms of the amounts.

Read: Arrests, fines and imprisonment a reality for SA employers hiring illegal foreign nationals

So the scary part for a lot of employers out there at the moment is in regard to the fines going anywhere from R100 000 to R1 million or, in certain circumstances, even more than that.

I think that’s the scary part at the moment.

JIMMY MOYAHA: Aadil, you touched on the fact that the Department of Home Affairs has taken a slightly different approach, and I suppose the main differentiator here is we’re looking at undocumented foreign nationals versus those who are legitimately in South Africa.

I want to take a look at the penalties in more detail and get a sense of perhaps some of the unintended consequences that could come up for businesses legitimately seeking the expertise of legitimate foreign service providers and foreign nationals.

How could we possibly find ourselves in a tough spot, given that some of our sectors and some of our industries do currently face a skills shortage? I suppose that’s what we’re trying to drive with the Department of Home Affairs side of things.

AADIL WADEE: Of course. When it comes to undocumented foreign nationals, illegal foreign nationals in South Africa, the Immigration Act already basically imposes [penalties] on employers – they are deemed to know they are employing undocumented foreign nationals and that’s when the fines or imprisonment can be imposed on them because it’s deemed that they already know.

So a lot of emphasis is placed on employers themselves to make sure that any individual who is employed by the company has been vetted properly, has the correct documentation.

Because, if they are deemed to be an illegal foreigner, obviously those fines and/or imprisonment can be imposed.

In terms of the skills shortage specifically, the department is obviously very aware of that. With regard to a lot of the long-term visa options already available for South Africa, those cater to various different needs, depending on the individuals themselves.

There are also options out there in terms of visa options whereby, if they are for low-lying employees or low-level employees, there is something known as a corporate visa, et cetera. That’s often the case in terms of farm workers, for example.

They’ve tried to cater for everyone, whether skills in a multinational company, or maybe a farmer who requires certain expertise for the type of fruit he’s growing.

At the end of the day they have tried to cater for every one of those individuals. It’s now up to the employer to make sure that, yes, sometimes I do understand that it takes a little bit of time to try and get those visas out. That’s where a lot of the problem comes in – due to the time aspect.

But the problem is those mechanisms do exist at the end of the day.

So relying on ‘Oh, we just can’t get them in because there’s a skills shortage, and we had to bring them in as soon as possible’ will not suffice as an applicable excuse when the Department of Labour, or the Department of Home Affairs, or SAPS [South African Police Service] rocks up at your business and asks ‘Why do you have an illegal foreigner?’.

The fact of the matter is you were supposed to follow the route which is laid out in the Immigration Act itself.

JIMMY MOYAHA: Aadil, before I let you go, I want to take a closer look at that route and the practical steps that companies, prospective employers, can explore when looking to have legally compliant foreign professionals come and work in South Africa. That’s also quite important if we are to find that some businesses require these services. As you said, there is a route to go by; there are practical steps to follow here.

Where should we start, especially given that we don’t know if this bill is going to move ahead or not as yet? But businesses need to prepare.

AADIL WADEE: Of course. I fully agree businesses do need to prepare because, again, I just want to touch on the fact that as much as this bill isn’t passed, the fact that the Immigration Act already has certain fines and imprisonment built in the system means that we don’t have to wait for the bill to be passed before employers start stressing.

I feel they should have started stressing almost yesterday already, because with the way the country’s currently going and the number of inspections, et cetera, going on, it is crucial for employers to make sure that they are doing things the correct way.

The starting point for most employers out there who employ foreign nationals or have foreign nationals currently employed within their businesses, is to first vet the documents that those nationals currently have. It’s super-important to do so.

Something I want to touch on is it’s not just [enough] that an employee comes to you and produces a visa or permanent residence, et cetera, document. There is a deeper look into that which has to be done. There are obviously a lot of fraudulent documents out there which have to be looked at.

And secondly, the visa itself is always specific to the scenario of that individual.

The conditions on a visa, for example, differ from case to case. So it’s always important to first do that.

And there’s one of two ways as a starting basis. First, there is formal verification itself, which is done through the Department of Home Affairs, whereby they will verify the authenticity of that visa.

Or sometimes you can do something as an informal verification through third parties, whereby there are professionals who look at the documents of your employees to make sure that they are legitimate, or provide you at least with a basis to say that on face value this is what it appears to be.

That is a very good starting point for employers out there, because they have to vet the people they currently employ.

For future planning, it’s always important to identify the type of situation you’re currently in – and why the employee needs to come to South Africa. And then on that basis we need to qualify it against the Immigration Act to see which category itself actually allows that employee to come in on that specific basis.

So future planning is a little easier, because we now know we have to make sure that we deal with each scenario on a specific basis.

But for current employees in your employ, it is extremely important right now to just make sure.

Just because they have a visa doesn’t mean they’re here legally. It means you have to make sure that that visa itself is correct for the position they’re in within your company.

JIMMY MOYAHA: Some potentially significant changes are on the cards for employers looking to hire foreign nationals in South Africa.

Of course, this conversation is an ongoing one; it has been ongoing for the longest time. We’ll keep an eye on how these developments may financially impact employers going forward.

We’ll leave the conversation on that note. Senior immigration consultant at Xpatweb Aadil Wadee joined us to take a look at the latest amendment bill being put forward for consideration around penalties for those who employ undocumented foreign nationals.

Source: https://www.moneyweb.co.za/moneyweb-radio/safm-market-update/new-penalties-put-employers-on-notice/

Gauteng equips social workers to better support GBV survivors

by | Labour Market News

The Gauteng Department of Social Development is strengthening support for gender-based violence survivors by equipping social workers and frontline professionals with specialised trauma-informed care skills to provide compassionate, victim-centred support and promote long-term healing.

For GBV survivors, healing can continue long after the immediate crisis. The Gauteng Department of Social Development is strengthening support services by equipping frontline officials with specialised trauma-informed care skills.

The department recently hosted a Trauma-Informed Care Conference at the Springs Civic Centre in the Eastern Corridor, bringing together Social Workers and other professionals working under the Victim Empowerment Programme (VEP).

The initiative supports Pillar 4 of the National Strategic Plan on Gender-Based Violence and Femicide (GBVF) 2020–2030, which focuses on response, care, support and healing.

ALSO READ: From GBV survivor to entrepreneur: Nxumalo tells her story

Director for the Victim Empowerment Programme and Social Crime Prevention, Khanyisile Mathebula, said the aim is to ensure survivors receive sensitive, appropriate and victim-centred services that support both immediate needs and long-term recovery.

“Through VEP, the Department works closely with key stakeholders across the criminal justice and health sectors,” she said, naming the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, National Prosecuting Authority, police, Department of Community Safety and Department of Health.

Mathebula said departmental monitoring identified a need to further strengthen therapeutic and psychosocial services provided by social workers across the province.

ALSO READ: Ekurhuleni DA mayoral candidate calls for urgent action against GBV

“The training aims to equip Social Workers with practical knowledge and skills to provide effective counselling and trauma-informed interventions to victims and their families,” she said.

The conference covered understanding trauma, including trauma caused by domestic violence and sexual offences, how trauma manifests, and therapeutic approaches for individuals, couples and families.

Psychologist and occupational therapist Dr Marcia Zikhali also supported the conference, providing specialised expertise on the emotional, psychological and social impact of GBV.

ALSO READ: Gauteng MEC condemns child abuse, calls for urgent action on GBV

The training further highlighted effective referral systems, safe and private environments for victims, and the importance of supporting Social Workers to reduce burnout and secondary trauma.

Zikhali stressed that victims and their families should be active participants in the healing process.

“Victim-centred services are essential in promoting healing, restoring dignity and empowering survivors to rebuild their lives,” she said.

The department said it remains committed to strengthening frontline services and partnerships to ensure GBV survivors receive compassionate, professional and effective support throughout their healing journey.

Source: https://www.citizen.co.za/kempton-express/news-headlines/local-news/2026/08/27/gauteng-equips-social-workers-to-better-support-gbv-survivors/

Retrenchment by AI… and other unfair labour risks of HR automation

by | Labour Market News

The Labour Relations Act, 1995 (LRA) provides every employee with the right not to be unfairly dismissed and not to be subjected to an unfair labour practice. Where artificial intelligence (AI) systems are used in HR-practices, for example, to generate performance ratings, identify employees for retrenchment, or make decisions about promotion, training, or dismissal, the interplay between algorithmic decision-making and the LRA’s protections becomes critical.

 

Melissa Cogger, Partner, Bowmans

AI-generated performance ratings and dismissals for poor performance

The Code of Good Practice: Dismissal (Code), read with applicable case law, has established requirements for a fair dismissal on the ground of poor performance. These include, among other things, a clear and objective performance standard; communication of the standard to the employee; a fair opportunity to meet the standard; and a fair process before dismissal.

Where an AI system generates a performance rating that leads to a poor performance process and ultimately to dismissal, a number of LRA-related concerns come into play.

The first relates to explicability. The employer must be able to explain to the employee how the performance rating was generated. If the employer cannot explain the algorithm’s methodology (the so-called ‘black box’ problem) it will be difficult to demonstrate that the standard is clear, objective and fair.

Second, there is the question of objectivity. An AI-generated performance rating is only as objective as the data on which it is trained and the criteria it applies. If the algorithm incorporates irrelevant or biased variables, or focuses only on quantifiable metrics, the resultant rating may not constitute a fair and objective measure of performance.

Soft skills such as interpersonal dynamics, leadership qualities, the ability to take on feedback, and collaboration with colleagues may be missed. Reliance on AI ratings accordingly risks providing a narrow and incomplete view of an employee’s overall contribution to the organisation.

Third, the employee’s opportunity to respond must be meaningful. An employee who is told that an algorithm has rated their performance as inadequate must be given an opportunity to challenge that rating. This requires, at minimum, that the employee understands what the algorithm measured and how it arrived at its conclusion.

Fourth, human oversight remains essential. A dismissal based solely on an AI-generated rating, without independent human assessment, is likely to be found procedurally and substantively unfair.

AI in retrenchment selection criteria

Section 189 of the LRA requires that, in retrenchment exercises, selection criteria must be agreed upon with consulting parties or, failing agreement, must be fair and objective.

AI systems might be used to identify what potential selection criteria should be proposed by the employer, or could apply any agreed or determined selection criteria by the employer to suggest which employees are selected for retrenchment.

Where an AI system is used to identify employees for retrenchment (for instance, by scoring employees on skills assessments, qualifications, or experience) the following risks arise:

  • the criteria applied by the algorithm may not be fair and objective (for example, where they incorporate biased variables that disadvantage employees on the basis of race, gender, age or disability);
  • the employer may be unable to explain to employees or the consulting parties how the algorithm selected particular employees for retrenchment; and
  • the algorithm may depart from agreed or conventional selection criteria (such as ‘Last in First Out’, known as LIFO) without a justifiable basis.

A retrenchment exercise that relies on opaque or unexplainable selection criteria driven by AI is vulnerable to challenge as procedurally and substantively unfair.

Promotion and training decisions driven by AI: unfair labour practices

Where AI systems are used to recommend employees for promotion or to identify employees for training and development opportunities, decisions that are arbitrary, irrational, or incapable of being explained and justified by the employer, may constitute unfair labour practices under section 186(2) of the LRA (as well as give rise to unfair discrimination claims).

The following examples illustrate how AI-driven results could give rise to such disputes:

  • An AI system recommends younger employees for upskilling programmes on the basis that they have a longer projected tenure with the organisation and therefore represent a better ‘return on investment’. Older employees who are excluded from these programmes may have a claim on the basis that the AI system’s recommendation constitutes unfair conduct relating to the provision of training or benefits, in addition to a separate claim of unfair discrimination on the basis of age.
  • An employee passed over for promotion could argue that the AI-driven decision constitutes unfair conduct, particularly where the algorithm’s criteria indirectly discriminated against them or failed to account for legitimate absences such as maternity leave, family responsibility leave or periods of ill health, which can similarly give rise to unfair discrimination claims on the basis of sex, gender, family responsibility and disability status.

Over-reliance on algorithmic selection may inadvertently exclude employees with high potential who do not conform to established data patterns. As with performance ratings, the algorithm may focus on quantifiable metrics whilst overlooking qualitative factors, resulting in selections that do not account for the full value an employee contributes to the organisation.

AI-generated disciplinary outcomes

The emerging practice of disciplinary decision-makers using AI tools to assist in formulating findings, rulings, or sanction recommendations presents a distinct set of risks.

A particular danger is the phenomenon of AI ‘hallucinations’, where AI tools generate plausible-sounding but factually incorrect or fabricated information.

In the legal context, this may manifest as fictitious case law, invented or incorrectly cited statutory provisions, or purported legal principles that are outdated or have no basis in authority. Relying blindly on such material in a disciplinary context, without independent verification, may compromise the fairness and integrity of the process and render the outcome vulnerable to challenge.

The Labour Court’s recent decision in Molawa and Others v Matjhabeng Local Municipality and Another provides instructive guidance on these risks.

In that matter, the applicants sought to stay disciplinary proceedings pending the determination of a review application in which they challenged rulings made by the disciplinary chairperson. Central to their challenge was the allegation that the chairperson had relied on AI-generated authorities in support of his findings.

The court found that several of the authorities cited by the chairperson either did not exist or did not support the propositions advanced.

It had yet to be definitively established whether they were indeed generated by AI, but the court held that whether the citations were generated by an ‘assistant’ or self-generated by the Chairperson himself, the result is the same: there was prima facie evidence that the chairperson failed to apply his mind to the law.

The Court accordingly granted the interdict, finding that it would not be in the interests of justice to require the employees to subject themselves to a disciplinary enquiry chaired by an individual whose decision-making had been called into serious question.

Employers should accordingly exercise caution if they permit decision-makers to use AI tools in disciplinary proceedings, and should implement guardrails on when and how (if any) AI can be used in disciplinary proceedings.

Requirement for fair process and the inability to explain AI decisions

A thread that runs through all of the above scenarios is the requirement for procedural fairness. The LRA and Code require that employees be given reasons for adverse decisions, an opportunity to respond, and a fair process before a decision is taken.

Where the employer cannot explain the AI system’s reasoning, or where the decision is taken by the algorithm without meaningful human intervention, these procedural requirements cannot be met.

Employers must accordingly ensure that AI systems are used as decision-support tools, not as autonomous decision-makers, and that every material employment decision is subject to independent human review by a person who can articulate the reasons for the decision and respond to the employee’s representations.

To the extent that personal information is uploaded onto AI systems, employers must also have regard to their obligations under the Protection of Personal Information Act 4 of 2013.

The ultimate message for employers is clear: AI may inform, but humans must decide.

Read more: Bowmans, AI in the work environment, AI in the workforce, Melissa Cogger, AI in HR, AI in recruitment, AI hallucinations. 

Source: https://www.bizcommunity.com/article/retrenchment-by-ai-and-other-unfair-labour-risks-of-hr-automation-075075a

Workers from Msunduzi Municipality back at work after ending 5-day strike

by | Labour Market News

On Tuesday night, the municipality and the worker union reached a settlement, which brought the strike to an end.

The Msunduzi CBD amid the ongoing strike by the municipality’s workers. Picture: Thabiso Goba/EWN

Workers from the Msunduzi Municipality are back at work on Wednesday following a five-day labour strike that brought service delivery to a standstill in KwaZulu-Natal’s capital.

On Tuesday night, the municipality and the worker union reached a settlement, which brought the strike to an end.

ALSO READ: Msunduzi service delivery halted as municipal workers continue labour strike

Workers had taken to the streets to raise their grievances around overtime pay, standby allowances, grading and job descriptions.

The strike saw piles of rubbish strewn around the Msunduzi CBD, with waste also not being collected from residential areas.

The regional chairperson of the South African Municipal Workers Union (SAMWU), Brandon George, said, “Everybody has returned back to work today [Wednesday]. We’re just basically awaiting now an arbitration award from the bargaining council. An arbitration will be today [Wednesday]. But yes, we have managed to find each other and find common ground.”

Source: https://www.ewn.co.za/workers-from-msunduzi-municipality-back-at-work-after-ending-5-day-strike/

R2,500 pain for teachers in South Africa

by | Labour Market News

South African public school teachers have seen their salaries increase significantly since 2019, but the increases have failed to keep pace with inflation, leaving many worse off in real terms.

For an entry-level teacher with a Relative Equivalent Qualification Value (REQV) 14 qualification, the gap amounts to R17,915 over the period, equivalent to roughly R2,559 a year.

The figures are contained in the salary adjustment data published by the Department of Basic Education, which sets out the salary notches applicable to teachers across the public education system.

Teacher salaries vary considerably depending on qualifications, experience and seniority. At the lower end of the scale, a teacher can earn around R169,707 a year, while salaries at the top end can reach about R1.33 million annually.

South Africa’s public education system employs approximately 411,200 teachers across 22,259 schools. A teacher’s basic salary is determined primarily by salary scales published in the Government Gazette.

Teachers enter the system at a particular notch based on their qualifications and experience, and can move up the scale through annual increments, provided they meet minimum performance requirements.

For example, a teacher with a matric certificate and four years of university education would typically enter the system at Notch 164. In 2026, this carries an annual salary of R366,051, or about R30,504 a month.

However, in 2019, the same minimum salary was R278,640, equivalent to approximately R23,220 a month. This represents a nominal increase of 31.4% over seven years. The problem is that inflation rose by 37.8% over the same period.

To have maintained the same purchasing power as the R278,640 salary in 2019, the teacher would need to be earning about R383,966 a year in 2026, or roughly R32,000 a month.

This leaves the current salary R17,915 below the inflation-adjusted level. Experience and promotion can substantially alter a teacher’s earnings.

Department heads, deputy principals and principals can earn considerably more than classroom teachers with similar qualifications, while experienced teachers generally progress through the salary notches over time.

Role Min. salary 2019 Min. salary 2026 Inflation adj. Diff.
Educator with REQV14 R278,640 R366,051
(+31.4%)		 R383,966
(+37.8%)		 -R17,915
(-R2,559 yoy)

Government salaries should be cut

Teachers also receive benefits that provide some financial support beyond their basic salaries.

These include an employer pension contribution of 13% of basic salary, a 13th cheque, and a medical aid subsidy for those who belong to the Government Employees Medical Scheme.

Teachers who own or rent homes can also qualify for a housing allowance of around R2,000 a month.

However, economist Dawie Roodt has argued that the central problem with South Africa’s public sector is not simply the amount being spent on salaries, but the value being delivered in return.

“State employees represent 3% of the South African population but account for 17% of the economy in salaries,” Roodt said at the Kragdag Conference.

He argued that South Africa needs more teachers and police officers, but said they should be paid differently and held to higher performance standards.

“However, they ought to be paid significantly less and required to deliver far better results than they currently do,” he said.

“So essentially, you ought to halve the salaries of all teachers, double the total number of teachers, and expect more from them.”

Roodt acknowledged that some teachers are “hopelessly underpaid and overworked”, but argued that this is not representative of the public service as a whole.

“Overall, teachers in South Africa are overpaid and underworked, and there are too few of them,” he said.

This likely refers to the top of the remuneration table, at which senior teachers, heads of departments, deputy principals, and principals get paid between R800,000 (R66,667pm) to R1.33 million (R11,833 pm).

“So, more money isn’t the issue. The real problem lies in the quality of output and, of course, better management.”

He also criticised the relationship between government spending on education and educational outcomes.

“If you plot this on a scatter graph, you see that our spending is very high, but our quality is very low,” he said.

“We spend a lot on education and other items, but the quality is poor. That is the real problem, not money.”

The full gazette with all salary notches can be read below.

Read more

Source: https://businesstech.co.za/news/government/871721/r2500-pain-for-teachers-in-south-africa/