Ban Labour brokers. COSATU. 'The Congress of South African Trade Unions applauds Labour Minister Membathisi Mdladlana for his statement to Langa residents that the ANC will “ban labour brokers after it wins next year’s election” and that “a vote for the ANC means exactly that”. COSATU totally agrees with him that “labour brokers are not doing our workers a service. People who are employed by labour brokers have no pensions, no benefits – in the end they are just dumped”. The federation also warmly welcomes the banning of labour broking by the government of Namibia. Labour broking is a form of human trafficking. These companies ‘sell’ the labour of workers to the highest bidder and then pay them the lowest possible wage, often in cash with no deductions for tax or UIF, let alone any benefits. The broker then pockets the difference as his or her profit. It is an extreme form of free-market capitalism which reduces workers to commodities that can be traded for profit, just as if they were meat or vegetables. Legislation clearly states that the ‘employer’ is whoever actually pays the workers’ wages, i.e. the broker, who thus should obliged to comply with all an employer’s statutory obligations to the workers. Often in practice, however, the broker and the company to which they supply the workers, each try to dodge their responsibility to contribute to tax, UIF, provident funds, medical aids, health and safety compliance, skills development, etc by claiming that it is the other’s responsibility. Labour brokers are also basically anti-trade union. Because ‘their’ workers are constantly being moved around from one workplace to another for short periods, often with no access to union officials or the possibility of stop-order deductions for union subs, they find it very hard to join a union or to remain as members. Labour brokers are also frequently ‘scab brokers’ and strike-breakers. We look forward to seeing the next ANC government finally bring an end to labour broking and all other forms of casualisation. All workers must have one clearly identifiable employer who is legally responsible for ensuring that they all receive all the benefits and protection they are entitled to under our constitution and labour laws, including the right to join and remain a member of a trade union. Patrick Craven (National Spokesperson)

Labour-broker employees have rights. 'Employing people via a labour broker is often seen as a hassle-free solution by employers. But everyone concerned needs to know and understand their rights and obligations, as employees of labour brokers are still employees and have rights. In Moremi and Coldline Food Brokers CC, the Council for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) commissioner was called upon to consider the claim of an employee to 10 weeks' severance pay based on his 10 years of service. He had been employed by a labour broker for a period of just over 10 years, during which time he was seconded to work as a merchandiser for Sasko at various stores, merchandising bread. He was employed on a temporary contract which had no specific end date. The labour broker was given notice by Sasko that its contract was to be terminated and, in turn, it advised all its employees accordingly. Moremi received a number of notices from the labour broker (his employer), none of which mentioned severance pay or referred to alternative employment. He subsequently found alternative employment, but pursued a claim for severance pay. The commissioner said that on the facts, it was clear that the company had had no intention of ever paying severance pay to all its employees who lost their jobs when it lost the Sasko contract, ostensibly because they were temporary workers. There was also no corroborated evidence that alternative employment was available until a few days before Moremi's employment was due to end and then it was a vague offer. By then he had found another job. The commissioner also rejected the labour broker's arguments that the purpose of severance pay was to tide over the employee during the period after retrenchment and while looking for another job (and, therefore, that because Moremi had found other work he should not get severance pay). The commissioner pointed out that South Africa has a well-developed labour law on the subject of severance pay which can be summarised as follows: severance pay is meant to cushion the blow of unemployment; as a gratuity for services rendered; and as compensation for employees who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. It also deters employers from resorting to retrenchment lightly. The amount of severance pay is linked to length of service, with no ceiling, and the formula applies to all employees, irrespective of status. The allegedly temporary contract with no end-date was nothing more than permanent employment subject to termination only for good reason. There had been no proper offer of alternative employment which might disentitle him to severance pay. Therefore, Moremi was entitled to severance pay based on his 10 completed years of service. The commissioner also awarded costs in favour of Moremi so that he could pay the attorney who had assisted him in upholding his rights. This is unusual in the CCMA and shows the extent of the commissioner's disapproval of the way Moremi was treated. This case illustrates the dangers of thinking that because a contract says it is temporary, it can simply be cancelled when the labour broker loses a contract. Employees of labour brokers need to be treated fairly just like any other employee. Employees who are retrenched are entitled to severance pay unless they are made an offer of reasonable alternative employment.   Susan Stelzner is head of employment law at Edward Nathan Sonnenbergs.

Regulating Labour Brokers. 'Cosatu is calling for the ban of labour brokers following such very action having been recently taken in Namibia. This has further prompted the Department of Labour to draft regulations outlining new requirements for the registration of staffing organizations and has proposed the creation of an "employment services system" which will see all job vacancies, and all appointments made, reported to the government. Cosatu's argument is that many labour brokers fail to adhere to minimum standards of employment, and the transient form of such employment makes it difficult to organize workers. However, the Confederation of Associations in the Private Employment Sector (CAPES) is fighting back, pointing out that many of such workers are in learnerships and various skills programmes who wouldn't have employment if organizations didn’t have the opportunity to outsource employment. Further, CAPES is fearing that many of its agency members will be unable to comply with the proposed stringent regulations. The use of labour brokers allows employers more flexibility in the way they plan to use their resources, and provides relief from administrative burdens of the employer (eg: PAYE; pension fund contributions etc). As a result, labour brokers have become increasingly attractive to employers, particularly as a solution for short term projects and for dealing with seasonal spikes in production. There are roughly 6000 recruitment centres nationally. Further, should the definition of "labour broker" be interpreted literally, this would include anyone who provides a service if he has employees who do some of the work (eg: plumbers; electricians etc). The proposed regulations would therefore have an extensive impact on not only large businesses, thereby also discouraging investors, but also small businesses which do not even employ the services of traditional labour brokers. Such an attack on workforce flexibility would undoubtedly be negatively perceived by employers and investors. CAPES is therefore hoping to subdue this move by pleading a case that the answer is not to ban the concept of labour brokers, but rather to manage it. Anna Posokhov is a Candidate Attorney at Webber Wentzel.

Mdladlana keen to ban labour brokers. 'LABOUR Minister Membathisi Mdladlana has threatened to ban labour brokers if the ANC wins next year‘s general elections. Mdladlana, who was in Cape Town at the weekend campaigning for the ANC, told Langa residents that “a vote for the ANC means exactly that”. His remarks were hailed by Cosatu, which likened labour broking to “human trafficking”, “a modernised form of slavery” and “an extreme form of free-market capitalism”. Cosatu spokesman Patrick Craven said the practice had been effectively outlawed in Namibia and urged the government to follow the example. “These companies sell the labour of workers to the highest bidder and then pay them the lowest possible wage, often in cash with deductions for tax or UIF, let alone any benefits. The broker then pockets the difference as his or her profit.” Mdladlana remarked early this year that “there is no place for labour brokers in a harmonised labour market that seeks the interests of the people first”. The issue featured prominently during the metalworkers strike in the Eastern Cape last year. Goodyear in Uitenhage came under heavy pressure from the National Union of Metalworkers of SA (Numsa) to abolish its relationship with labour broker Kelly. Vehicle glass manufacturer Shatterprufe also had to accede to the union federation‘s demand this year to do away with brokers and employ temporary workers permanently. “In line with our Namibian counterparts, the process of phasing out labour brokers should be speeded up,” Numsa regional organiser Andile Zitho said yesterday. “Our national congress resolution was categorical that the labour brokers should be outlawed.” Cosatu-affiliated unions also contend that labour brokers are “anti- trade union”, as workers who were employed for short periods found it difficult to join trade unions.

Avoid liability when using labour brokers; independent contractors. Ernst & Young Services (PTY) Ltd. 'By making use of labour brokers or independent contractors, you could inadvertently expose yourself and your company to liability claims. It is a reality in today’s business world that organisations make use of labour brokers to supply them with personnel or independent sub-contractors to conduct certain work on their behalf. Companies engage with contractors of labour brokers for any one of a number of reasons: they may require specific expertise, or have a temporary requirement for extra labour over busy periods. Businesses are, however, exposed to the risk of potential liability claims when using this type of labour. Avoiding such claims does not mean staying away from these services, but rather understanding the attendant risks. That allows for the implementation of appropriate processes and controls to address these risks. The tax and labour law implications of using employees of labour brokers and contractors are generally known. These are behind two of the lesser recognised dangers that lurk in these situations, which are the action against a client of a labour broker for occupational diseases and injuries suffered or sustained by an employee of the labour broker and the liability of an employer for the negligent conduct of an independent contractor.

Occupational diseases and injuries
Section 35(1) of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act, 130 of 1993 prohibits injured employees (or dependants) from claiming damages or compensation from the employer in a court of law for injuries or diseases sustained in the course of their employment.  The employer’s liability is limited to paying assessments (contributions) to the state compensation fund from which compensation is paid to employees.  This applies only to the employer of the employee only and not to third parties. A recently reported decision of the Supreme Court of Appeal, Crown Chickens (Pty) Ltd t/a Rockland Poultry v Rieck 2007 (2) SA 118 (SCA) highlighted the potential liability for occupational injuries and diseases to which employers expose themselves when using employees of labour brokers. In this case, Crown Chickens used a labour broker to supply the services of a cashier (Ms Rieck) for a shop situated on the farm.  Ms Rieck had an employment contract with the labour broker, which paid her salary and handled all other administration related to her employment.  Ms Rieck performed her duties under the control of Crown Chickens, which paid the labour broker. During the course of an armed robbery, Ms Rieck sustained a gunshot wound inflicted accidentally by a Crown Chickens employee. She claimed damages from the company based on the negligent conduct of the security staff.  Part of the Crown Chickens’ defence was that Ms Rieck became its employee when her services were hired to them, and that it was therefore protected against actions for damages under section 35(1). The Court dismissed the appeal and ruled that based on the correct interpretation of the definitions of ‘employer’ and ‘employee’ in the Act, is that an employer is the person with whom the employee had a contractual relationship, even if the employee performs his contractual obligations for someone else.  In this instance, Ms Rieck had a contract with the labour broker and not with Crown Chickens, and therefore Crown Chickens as the client of the labour broker was not immune against actions for damages pertaining to occupational injuries and diseases sustained Ms Rieck. Liability for the negligent conduct of an independent contractor When potentially dangerous activities, such as construction work, are to be conducted on a business premises, the services of an independent contractor are frequently called upon, especially if the work is of a specialised nature. An occupier of the premises will usually enter into an agreement with the contractor to indemnify themselves in respect of potential damages resulting from the dangerous activities. However, what happens should a customers or member of the public suffer an injury and sue for damages? In Crawhall v Minister of Transport and Another 1963 (3) SA 614 (T) the court ruled that “If work has to be done on premises to which the public has access, and that work can reasonably be expected to cause damage unless proper precautions are taken, the duty of the occupier to see that those precautions are taken and that the premises are safe persists, whether he does the work himself or through his own servants or delegates it to an independent contractor.” The basic rule is that the occupier of premises has a legal duty to ensure that persons who could be expected to enter the premises are not injured, or damage is not caused to their property, due to a dangerous situation on the premises.  This does not mean that an occupier would be liable for damages resulting from a dangerous situation created by the unlawful and unforeseeable conduct of a stranger, unless the occupier obtained knowledge thereof and failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the damage. It is therefore apparent that an occupier cannot rely on an agreement between himself and a contractor to indemnify himself from claims from persons who suffer damage or injury due to the dangerous activities conducted on the premises which he occupies. In Langley Fox Building Partnership (Pty) Ltd v de Valence 1991 (1) SA 1 (A), the respondent, Mrs de Valence, suffered an injury  when the left side of her forehead struck a wooden beam suspended between two trestles at right angles across the sidewalk on which she was walking. The beam was erected by a subcontractor employed by Langley Fox Building Partnership, which was employed to refurbish and extend a building.  The court ruled that as no steps had been taken by Langley Fox Building Partnership to guard against the danger, it was liable to compensate the respondent for damages. The duty of an employer of an independent contractor is to take steps to prevent harm to members of the public. The court ruled that this will depend in each case upon the facts; and that it is relevant to consider the following in each case:
. the nature of the danger
. the context in which the danger may arise
. the degree of expertise available to the employer and the independent contractor respectively
. and the means available to the employer to avert the danger.

Furthermore, the court noted that the list of consideration is in no way intended to be comprehensive.

'Labour brokers exploit workers' - unions. Pressure is growing on the government to regulate - even shut down - the labour-broking industry, amid claims that workers are being ruthlessly exploited for gain. The industry has defended itself, claiming that brokers provide employment for about 500 000 workers a year, at a time when jobs are sorely needed. The brokers have been bitterly attacked by the trade unions, who described the industry as another form of "human trafficking" and "modernised slavery". The Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu) described it as "an extreme form of free market capitalism". These claims were put to both sides of the argument in a sometimes heated discussion on SAfm Radio's After Eight Debate on the need for regulation in the labour-broking industry.The debating panel was given an assurance that the industry benefited both the workers and employers by a spokeswomen for the brokers, Debbie Lieberthal. She said brokers were frequently used by companies when they had a shut down or were doing a temporary project. "They do not want to employ permanent staff for a week or a month or two months to finish a project," she said. "You cannot permanently employ 50 people for two days." Lieberthal said the trade unions were opposed to the industry largely because it circumvented their control. "One of the biggest reasons the unions are coming in and saying this is because they do not have jurisdiction over the 500 000 people." Lieberthal denied union claims that brokers paid "peanuts" to their temporary workers, saying: "Are you telling me that R85 to R200 for an artisan or a manager is 'peanuts'?" She claimed the brokers had always paid more than a lot of companies offered to their workers. "We supply staff on demand at wages that are agreed." But the brokers were attacked by the general secretary of the Federation of Unions of South Africa, Dennis George, who said the industry was undermining the principle of "decent work". "It undermines the Constitution of the right to collective bargaining. They set the rates." George claimed companies were getting rid of permanent staff and hiring temporary workers, for whom they did not have to provide benefits. There was a need, he said, to get rid of the "bakkie brigade" and others who exploited temporary workers without giving them the benefits to which they should ordinarily be entitled. There was a need to uplift workers, agreed John Botha, spokesman for the Confederation of Associations in the Private Employment Sector. Botha agreed there were some "problem operators" who were exploiting temporary labour. But, he said, labour brokers were paying above minimum wages and complying with all the statutory requirements.

Mdladlana plans to ban labour brokers. DoL.'Labour Minister Membathisi Mdladlana was campaigning in Langa when he told residents that the ANC plans to ban labour brokers. According to a report in the Sowetan, Mdladlana told a small group of residents that a vote for the ANC would mean that ban would be implemented after the next election. “Labour brokers are not doing our workers a service. “People who are employed by labour brokers have no pensions, no benefits – in the end they are just dumped,” the Sowetan reports Mdladlana said. There was strong support for the call by labour federation Cosatu. “Labour broking is a form of human trafficking,” Cosatu spokesperson Patrick Craven said in a statement. “These companies ‘sell’ the labour of workers to the highest bidder and then pay them the lowest possible wage, often in cash with no deductions for tax or UIF, let alone any benefits. The broker then pockets the difference as his or her profit. It is an extreme form of free-market capitalism which reduces workers to commodities that can be traded for profit, just as if they were meat or vegetables”. “Legislation clearly states that the ‘employer’ is whoever actually pays the workers’ wages, i.e. the broker, who thus should obliged to comply with all an employer’s statutory obligations to the workers. Often in practice, however, the broker and the company to which they supply the workers, each try to dodge their responsibility to contribute to tax, UIF, provident funds, medical aids, health and safety compliance, skills development, etc by claiming that it is the other’s responsibility”.

How companies cheat workers. IOL of 19 November 2008. 'A growing number of large employers are resorting to outsourcing in order to bypass labour legislation, a Wits University report commissioned by the Department of Labour has revealed. The report also paints a damning picture of big mining and manufacturing companies' tendency of contracting service providers who exploit their workers in order to maintain their profits. Speaking at the release of the report into the labour market on Tuesday, Wits Professor Edward Webster said there was a growing informalisation of the labour market in the country. Webster said the department needed to intervene in the practices of large manufacturing companies in the supply chain. "What we are seeing is a growing tendency by the large employers to outsource services because then they do not have to pay out proper wages and benefits to employees. "Workers are employed on contract by the service providers and they find themselves at the bottom of the economy," he said. Webster said the notion about two economies existing was a misrepresentation of what was really happening. "The so-called two economies are directly related. This report is presented through the notion that South Africa is divided into two economies; a first economy of modern establishments and decent work, and a second economy consisting of a range of precarious and vulnerable forms of work and survival activities. This is misleading. It is wrong to see the informal sector merely as a set of survival activities performed by the poor and destitute," he said. Webster said this was also demonstrated in the liquor business, where a large SA Breweries truck that delivers stock to an unregistered tavern "is directly involved with the informal sector and was making money from the business".

Labour laws needs a revamp - Mdladlana. IOL of 14 October 2008. 'The enforcement of labour law needs to be revamped as it is not sufficiently protecting workers' rights, labour minister Membathisi Mdladlana said on Monday. Speaking at the 8th National Union of Mineworkers Congress in Vanderbijlpark, Mdladlana said the exploitation of workers was being compounded by the increasing use of labour brokers. "Informality has become the name of the game by labour brokers and yet people want us to believe that our labour market is rigid. How can it be rigid with the subcontracting that is so common?" he said. "If it was rigid, it would be difficult for chief executives of companies to retrench workers with such ease." Unemployment in the informal sector has increased by 20 000 between March and July this year due to a sharp decline in formal employment, said Mdladlana. "A rise in informal sector employment shows a need for the creation of decent work agenda to protect the rights of workers," he said

Minister declares war on worker-right violating employers. DoL. 'Labour Minister Membathisi Mdladlana has vowed to "hunt down" any employer who continues to disregard the rights of their workers in direct defiance of the country's laws. Addressing the International Workers Day celebrations in Orkney, North West today, Minister Mdladlana said that despite the constitution in which the protection of every worker's right and the promotion of fair labour practices are enshrined, clear evidence was that millions were continuing to suffer varying kinds of vulnerability, including retrenchments and casualisation. Quoting the latest labour force survey results of March this year, he said that of about 13 million employed South Africans, only 7,7 million were in permanent jobs, while the rest were either not registered with the Unemployment Insurance Fund, (UIF) employed without any written contracts, having no paid leave or medical aid benefits. "As the Department of Labour, we are the first to admit that we have not been sufficiently effective in enforcing our labour laws. We must therefore make a pledge today to hunt down all these employers not paying UIF, leave, and having no written contracts with their employees and enforce the law," he said. The minister urged organised business to help identify law-flouting employers and expel them from their membership of employer organisations. Trade unions could also not allow a situation to continue where half of the country's workers were not unionised despite this right being enshrined in the constitution. "Organised workers make it easier for all of us to manage the labour market, while unorganised workers are a recipe for disaster for all of us." The Minister said the continued mass job losses were a direct contrast to claims that South African labour laws were rigid and making it difficult to fire workers.

Labour brokerage needed to address the rampant workplace fatalities. DoL. 28 September 2007. 'A government intervention in the labour brokerage system was urgently needed to address the rampant and unnecessary workplace fatalities, Labour Minister Membathisi Mdladlana said in Richards Bay this week. The Minister made the remarks during a visit to the mining company Richards Bay Minerals KwaZulu-Natal where he was assessing progress made on various skills related programmes which the department and the company agreed to last year. He said the bulk of work-related accidents and fatalities were attributable to the flouting of occupational health and safety measures mainly where operations were conducted by contracted employers on behalf of someone else. "We have to seriously look at ways in which this practice can be closely monitored and regulated. Contracted employers are always a common factor in all the tragic accidents that take place, including those at Sasol and Volkswagen. We have to be vigilant of people who are only interested in profits and making a quick buck at the expense of health and safety of workers," he said. Richards Bay Minerals (RBM) is among the 'Big Five' companies in Richards Bay that make use of the services of labour brokers. Some of the labour brokers offer general safety induction training to the general community at a cost to the unemployed. This practice is in contravention of the Occupational Health and Safety regulations. RBM deals in mining of titanium dioxide, rutile, high purity iron, zircon that is used in the manufacture of automobile parts, welding robs and other chemicals. However, the Minister expressed satisfaction at the fact that the majority of employees among the nearly 2 000 strong RBM workforces were unionised. He also commended the company's progress on skills development and employment equity.

Labour reads riot act to brokers. IOL of 7 February 2007. 'The department of labour has warned that labour brokers and contractors at Richard's Bay found to be recruiting workers irregularly would be black-listed for future government tenders. Spokesperson Zolisa Sigabi on Tuesday said the department would carry out a surprise blitz on companies in the KwaZulu-Natal port town. She said labour brokers and contractors were known to demand that work seekers pay for medical certificates that become "passports" to finding employment. According to the department, this cost should be borne by the labour broker or contractor who was, in effect, their employer. "To make matters worse, the unemployed work seeker, if successfully placed, is never reimbursed as he should be." The cost of the certificate should be carried by the employer, she pointed out. The department and big business at Richard's Bay had signed a memorandum of understanding with regard to alleviating the exploitation of unemployed job seekers. The blitz would also check on compliance with this memorandum, Sigabi said. Department of labour inspectors had found that the company, Kruger Bernade Consulting (Pty) Ltd, allowed workers to join its programme, which placed them with companies upon receiving the documents at their own cost. The "passports" were dubbed "KBC certificates". "The KBC Certificate has an expiry period attached to it, which means that if a person is still unemployed with a lapsed KBC Certificate, it will not be considered as 'valid' by these labour brokers or contracting firms," Sigabi said. Recent investigations by the department had revealed that Kruger Bernade Consulting had been awarded a tender by Bayside and Hillside Aluminium, Bell Equipment, Mondi Kraft, Richard's Bay Coal Terminal, Richard's Bay Minerals and Ticor SA, to provide induction training on Occupational Health and Safety to workers of these contracting firms. Kruger Bernade Consulting could not be reached for comment'.

Casual workers must have the same rights as full-time employees. The Star. By Terry Bell.
As I write this I am watching a labourer perched on the peak of a roof, four storeys high, without a harness or any protective clothing. He works for a roofing contractor, employed by a small-time developer to replace the corrugated iron roofing of a large old building. He reached his precarious perch by means of two ladders across two lower roofs and then by scrambling on hands and knees to reach the peak to begin loosening and lifting off the old iron cladding. Fortunately, the notorious Cape Southeaster is not blowing, or his position would be even more precarious. Like most labourers on the site, he is not a member of a union, is regarded as unskilled and works the long hours demanded not primarily because he is unaware of the labour laws, but because he is desperate for the work, despite the paltry pay. He is one of an army of labourers working on burgeoning construction sites around the country, contributing to the much-lauded building boom. He also works in a sector that accounts for among the highest number of industrial accidents, month by month and year by year. Many of these accidents go unreported by uncaring employers who are all too often also unregistered with the authorities. So they are reluctant to inform workers of their rights. But these workers, often recruited from the sides of roads, do have rights. And they qualify for compensation if and when they are injured while working. This is the only general advantage of a centralised compensation system, which removes from South African employees and their dependants the right to sue employers for negligence resulting in death or injury. All work-related accidents resulting in injuries or death are supposed to be compensated for from a fund administered by the Workmen’s Compensation Commission (WCC). The primary source of income for this fund is contributions from registered employers. In the last financial year to March, R2.93 billion was paid into WCC coffers by 295 651 of these employers. However, there are many more smaller employers, a large number in the construction sector, who are unregistered and as such liable to prosecution. From this month, workers across the board may also have gained greater access to the fund, should they suffer, or have suffered in the past, temporary total disablement (TTD). This means being unable to carry on in a job because of an industrial accident. The law states, as it has done for 65 years, that any worker who is unable to continue in a job because of injury is entitled to 75 percent of pay for up to 12 months. But until the Legal Resources Centre (LRC) in Pretoria took up the case of former truck driver John Molefe, the WCC had not applied that rule: payment was only made for the period an injured worker was receiving “active medical treatment”. “So even those workers whose accidents were reported and who knew to take the matter up were not being paid what was due to them,” agrees Paula Howell of the Pretoria LRC office. The case of Molefe is among a multitude of compensation matters that have been outstanding for years. He was a driver during crosscountry deliveries and expected to sleep in his truck during overnight trips. Ten years ago, during an attempted night-time hijack, he had one arm shattered by a bullet, but still managed to drive away and reach a police station. However, his employer maintained that his shattered arm was not an occupational injury. Assisted by the LRC, Molefe finally won disability pay and payment towards belated medical treatment. But because he had not received “active medical treatment” in the year after being shot, the WCC refused to pay out his TTD claim. Faced with high court action last month, the WCC agreed an out-of-court settlement, paying Molefe the amount owing to him, plus interest to cover the delay. The Molefe case has been hailed by the labour movement, which continues to fight an uphill battle to impose adequate health and safety standards in the poorly organised construction industry. “We welcome the Molefe settlement, especially as it relates to the construction sector where casualisation has caused an organisational nightmare for unions,” says Federation of Unions of SA general secretary Dennis George. Cosatu spokesperson Patrick Craven agrees. He adds: “Cosatu is deeply concerned at the appalling levels of health and safety in the construction industry and welcomes any move that improves safety, or in the event of injury, provides adequate compensation for workers in whatever sector.” But while the LRC and the unions feel that the Molefe settlement should be regarded as a binding precedent, it has not been acknowledged as such by the WCC. However, this may only be a matter of time: there are several more TTD cases pending and the LRC plans to use these as the basis of a class action that will make all future claims, where sound evidence exists, payable without argument. In the meantime, at least, that man on the fourth storey roof is aware of his rights'.