Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Amendment Bill: NCOP Amendments; with Deputy Minister

Meeting report

Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Amendment Bill: Amendments

Mr Thembinkosi Mkalipi, Chief Director: Labour Relations, Department of Employment and Labour (DEL), took Members through the proposed amendments to the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Amendment (COIDA) Bill.

Clause 39

On page 15, in line 51, it was proposed that the period to publish the notice to amend the regulations be increased from 30 to 60 days.

The Chairperson asked if Members had anything to add.

Mr M Nontsele (ANC) moved acceptance of the proposed amendment.

Mr S Mbade (ANC) seconded the proposal.

Dr M Cardo (DA) said that while the DA accepted the proposed amendments, it remained opposed to the overall Amendment Bill.

Clause 43

On page 16, in line 52, it was proposed that the year be changed from 2021 to 2022.

Mr Mbade moved that the amendment to the clause be adopted.

Mr M Wolmarans (ANC) seconded the amendment.

Clause 63

On page 24, in line 26, it was proposed that “workers” be changed to “employees,” to remain consistent with the wording of the Bill.

On page 24, in line 28, it was proposed that the year reflect 2022.

Mr Mbade moved that the amendments to the clause be adopted.

Ms A Zuma (ANC) seconded the proposal.

Clause 64

On page 24, in line 34, it was proposed that the year reflect 2022.

Mr Mdabe moved to accept the proposed amendment.

Ms Zuma seconded the proposal.

The Chairperson appreciated that the Committee was in agreement, and noted the objection of the DA to the Bill.

Ms Boitumelo Moloi, Deputy Minister of Employment and Labour, thanked Members for their input.

Committee report on oversight visit to Eastern Cape

The Chairperson took Members through a report covering the oversight visit conducted by the Portfolio Committee to the Eastern Cape from 18 to 22 April.

Under overall Committee observations, she highlighted that the Committee had interacted with staff, observed systems and heard the concerns of the people who serviced the DEL. Due to a lack of time, the Committee had been unable to receive input from communities on their experiences with the DEL, to better understand the staff's experiences.

Mr N Hinana (DA) said that the presentation by the DEL had failed to clearly provide information on, and highlight the exact issues at hand. He used the example of the presentation regarding the DEL being located in 16 centres across the province, and requested that the Department provide information on where these centres were located for future oversight visits.

Commenting on the backlogs resulting from vacancies, he noted there were 44 vacancies and asked what positions were yet to be filled, and if there was sufficient funding for the positions once the vacancies were filled.

The report reflected many challenges in the Department. One issue was that many people visiting its offices would have to make multiple trips to resolve an issue. This imposed additional travelling costs on individuals.

He asked that the DEL provide strategies of how it planned to tackle the 200 to 300 estimated backlog issues, as he felt that the current measures were inefficient. It also reflected poor management.

The Chairperson asked that Members formulate concise points of observation. She asked that the Committee Secretary add Mr Hinana’s points to the observations.

Mr Nontsele said the information communication technology (ICT) challenges were poorly reflected in the observations. The DEL had staff sitting idly due to the ICT challenges. Unemployment Insurance Fund (UIF) recipients, in particular experienced day-long delays. Productivity was greatly affected at the Nelson Mandela offices. He recommended that the DEL take urgent steps to address ICT challenges related to connectivity.

He also questioned whether the Committee should remain using the services of the State Information Technology Agency (SITA), or if they should opt out, as the South African Revenue Service (SARS) had done.

He raised the concerns that had been expressed by the East London workers on the Supported Employee Enterprise (SEE) programme. The working conditions there required urgent attention. Consultation had been very limited between the workers and management regarding their benefits and working conditions. He asked that it be reflected that there was a need to improve the consultation process, particularly on workers’ issues. An example was that although East London workers received medical aid, it was limited and required a further subsidy from the DEL, as it did not cover many benefits.

On progression, Mr Nontsele said that an East London worker had risen through the ranks and eventually acted as a supervisor for three years. However, when the position opened, it had been filled externally. He said that this was unwise, as the worker would have been more skilled to deal with the operations of the office. He asked how the Committee could ensure that workers progressed in work experience and rank, and recommended that training authorities in the workplace should be encouraged to deal with these issues.

The Chairperson requested that Members provide recommendations later in the meeting.

Mr Nontsele referred to transportation, and said that workers had difficulty accessing public transport in many instances, with some even experiencing harm. This posed a difficulty for workers trying to reach workplaces. They had said they would be willing to have a fee deducted if transport could be arranged for them. He said the matter was crucial to the productivity and functioning of the DEL.

The lack of building maintenance was of particular concern in East London and Nelson Mandela Bay. In Nelson Mandela Bay, the offices were so dull that employees had to work under lights. The deteriorated buildings required maintenance.   

The Chairperson referred to a matter from when the Committee visited the unit where Compensation Fund claims were processed. When they dealt with claims, they could now identify and correct some of the challenges in a case under investigation. She said the new system was a good buffer for identifying duplicate claims.

She recommended that the DEL, in consultation with the landlords, particularly in Gqeberha, must create a separate space for workers to have refreshments and lunch. It was unprofessional for workers to be eating at their desks or in hallways.

Mr Nontsele clarified that the medical aid he was referring to was the Makoti Medical Aid Scheme. He observed that the Western Cape Department of Health (DoH) was the only province to procure hospital linen. He said that the different departments were not procuring from SEE. There were many desks, but not many items of furniture. He had seen an office where only one printer worked across all five floors.

Recommendations

The Chairperson asked that the recommendations be based on the observations of working conditions, medical aid, progression and transport.

She suggested that the Committee Secretary draft the recommendations, which Members could then move to adopt in the following meeting.

Mr Hinana moved to adopt the Chairperson’s recommendation.

Mr Nontsele seconded the recommendation.

The meeting was adjourned.