UNISA v Reynhardt [2010] 12 BLLR 1272 (LAC): does affirmative action have a lifecycle?
Abstract
The Employment Equity Act (EEA) was enacted to achieve equity in the workplace
by prohibiting unfair discrimination and by requiring the implementation of affirmative
action measures to ensure the adequate representation of designated groups. To
ensure compliance with the EEA a designated employer must ensure that it
formulates an affirmative action policy within which employment equity targets are
stipulated and met. One of the on-going debates around affirmative action is whether
it has a life-span. One school of thought argues that affirmative action requires a
legislated sunset clause, in which considerations of race, gender and disability will
no longer be implemented by employers, instead of which each employer will look to
employ a candidate who is suitably qualified for the vacant post. The other school of
thought argues that the need for affirmative action is two-fold: to redress past
inequalities, but also to deal with existing inequalities within society. Having a sunset
clause this would negate the aim of affirmative action to deal effectively with both
kinds of inequalities and also the creation of a representative workforce. In the case
of UNISA v Reynhardt it was held that once an employer has reached his
employment equity targets it is no longer justifiable for it to apply affirmative action,
but that the principle to be applied is that the most suitably qualified candidate is to
be appointed. The non-application of affirmative action is subject to an employer’s
commitment to meeting employment equity targets and a recognition by the
employer that once these targets are reached they must be maintained within the
organisation. Consequently, once a disparity exists, affirmative action must again be
applied, resulting in the imputation of a distinct lifecycle to affirmative action. Failure
on the part of the employer to do this would have the potential of creating reverse
discrimination against employees who are not the beneficiaries of affirmative action.