Financial Sector code The FSC is still in draft phase. Parliament is getting quite concerned about the financial sector code and the slow pace of transformation in the financial sector. They are holding public hearings on the matter this week, and next week to try to sort this out. There have been many of submissions, both verbally and written. Keith Levenstein, EconoBEE Chairman has also given a written submission. His concern is the FSC has still not been finaliased. His viewpoint is the FSC should be abolished and revert to the Codes of Good Practice until such time as the delayed FSC can be finally gazetted. The amended codes were gazetted in 2013, and came into effect in 2015. To date, March 2017, the FSC has still not been finalised, and this is seen as giving the financial sector an unfair advantage. We can help alleviate your Skills Development pressure The Skills Development element can be a headache when you are trying to improve your B-BBEE scorecards. Previously, QSE’s could avoid this element by complying with other elements on the scorecard. This is now no longer possible and if QSE and Generic companies want a good score, they need to comply with the Skills Development element. The DTI has specified a target training spend of 6% of payroll for generic companies.

• Informal training where no NQF credits are awarded, are allowed a maximum of 15% expenditure.
• There are points awarded for qualifications or training provided for black employees and black unemployed persons and additional points are awarded for offering internships or apprenticeships.
• When 100% of trained black learners become employed by the company an additional five bonus points is awarded.
• Demographic representation must be shown to get all the points.

Let EconoBEE help alleviate the pressure. We will be hosting a breakfast session where we will have a Guest Speaker from Training Force and Sparrow FET college who will help you better understand how you can deal with the Skills Development element.   To RSVP, send your booking form to info@econohr.co.za or contact us on 011 483 1190 The issue of legal representation at the CCMA In terms of section 138 (1) of the Labour Relations Act (LRA) a CCMA commissioner “may conduct the arbitration in a manner that the commissioner considers appropriate in order to determine the dispute fairly and quickly, but must deal with the substantial merits of the dispute with the minimum of legal formalities.” Even though the intention of the drafters of the LRA was for a minimum of legal formalities, very often the converse prevails. Although legal representatives are not allowed at conciliation (mediation), they are allowed to represent a party at all arbitrations EXCEPT where “the dispute being arbitrated is about the fairness of a dismissal and a party has alleged that the reason for the dismissal relates to the employee’s conduct or capacity…”In such disputes about misconduct and incapacity a party can only be represented by a legal practitioner if:

• The commissioner and all parties consent.
• The commissioner concludes that it is unreasonable to expect a party to deal with the dispute without legal representation, after considering;
  • The nature of the questions of law raised by the dispute
  • The complexity of the dispute
  • The public interest and
  • The comparative ability of the opposing parties or their representatives to deal with the dispute

As a consequence, many CCMA arbitrations are NOT dealt with “the minimum of legal formalities”. Join us for an informative Full Day session on Labour Law and learn more about “The issue of legal representation at the CCMA.”   —  

EconoBEE.co.za – BEE Procurement – BEE Scorecard – Managed Service & Consulting – Exempt Micro Enterprise – Contact Us

Supplier hassles? Try BEEprocured