Solidarity forges forward with legal battle against Dis-Chem over 'white staff ban'

Cape Town - As solidarity union forges forward with its plans for legal action against Dis-Chem Pharmacies, the pharma retail giant said they noted the intended law action and would “strenuously defend” against it.

This week, Solidarity announced that they would be taking legal action against Dis-Chem after they had “missed the October 21 deadline to indicate whether it had withdrawn its controversial ban on employing and promoting white people”.

In a statement, the union said they would serve the first legal papers on Dis-Chem “this week still”.

“Solidarity wrote to Dis-Chem on 18 October, putting Dis-Chem on terms to indicate whether the controversial racial policy had been withdrawn. If not the case, Solidarity reserved the right to litigate. Dis-Chem has ignored this deadline,” the statement read.

Solidarity chief executive, Dr Dirk Hermann, said: “The entire South Africa wants to know whether Dis-Chem has only withdrawn the controversial memorandum or the policy as well. Instead of providing certainty, Dis-Chem refuses to disclose information. Dis-Chem’s statements are vague and do nothing to create certainty. The question is simply this: Is there a ban on employing and promoting white employees? The fact that Dis-Chem refuses to confirm the information leaves us with no choice but to accept that the policy stands.

“There are legal bounds to race legislation. Dis-Chem is now setting a new norm for the private sector. The law cannot be broken in an attempt to comply with an Act. Judicial decisions, too, have clearly shown that there are rights of white employees that must also be protected. Racial legislation and policy must not be punishment but must focus on redress. Dis-Chem wants to establish a hard-line racial policy. The goal is simply racial representivity, and it has nothing to do with redress,” Hermann said.

A Dis-Chem spokesperson said: “Dis-Chem will continue to strive to comply with the spirit of the Constitution and other applicable legislation, and, accordingly, continue to give preferential employment to suitably qualified persons from designated groups in an effort to ensure their equitable representation in all occupational levels. There is simply no ban on employing and promoting of white individuals. Dis-Chem has already addressed the wording and tone of its internal memorandum, dated 19 September 2022, in its subsequent memorandum from its board, dated 17 October 2022. Any action instituted will be strenuously defended,” the spokesperson said.

Last week, the Labour Department confirmed that the actions by Dis-Chem’s chief executive were compliant.

The Labour Department chairperson for the Commission for Employment Equity said: “The Dis-Chem memorandum has caused much debate in society on whether the actions of the CEO were just or not. While he was dealing with compliance in terms of demographic representation and has correctly applied the Sections mentioned above, we note that the memorandum does not position Employment Equity (EE) and transformation as a business imperative embedded in the business strategy. It, therefore, may be perceived to be malicious compliance. The Memorandum dealt with EE as a subject for chasing numbers instead of fully embracing the spirit and the letter of law. The response by the Board, on the other hand, seems to align EE to the values and ethos of the organisation, which is critical.

“The malicious compliance is one of the reasons for the tabling of the Amendment Bill of the Employment Equity Act. The EE Amendment Bill is still to be signed into law by the President, and we wait eagerly for this.”

Cape Times