/*php if (function_exists('dimox_breadcrumbs')) dimox_breadcrumbs(); */?>
Solidarity is currently involved in negotiations with the SAPS concerning amendments that should be made to the 2015-2019 EE plan.
Solidarity has been fighting against unfair affirmative action on behalf of its members in the SAPS for years.
Solidarity has more than 20 cases pending against the SAPS to combat unfair discrimination by the SAPS.
The affirmative action plan of the SAPS is negotiated by the SAPS, POPCRU and SAPU every five years.
These plans have established increasingly more rigid racial quotas that are defended as “targets”. In essence, the national racial demography is being used as the exclusive criterion for appointments and promotions.
Solidarity recently forwarded a document to the SAPS containing inputs for the affirmative action plan of the SAPS. The SAPS has not given feedback on our document yet. Solidarity is now taking the matter further with the SAPS in light of the agreement with the National Commissioner which we signed in July 2016.
It is these racial quotas that result in the blatant discrimination by the SAPS, which is continuing to promote black persons based on skin colour (in accordance with the affirmative action plan of the SAPS), while whites with the same number of years of service or even more are simply being overlooked on the basis of race.
These promotions on the basis of race have been negotiated by POPCRU and SAPU, and they used it actively in litigation against Solidarity in the Labour Court when we challenged the plan and the non-promotion of some of our members in the Labour Court.
The background and outcome of the case are explained in greater detail in the attached document.
Solidarity has been waiting for several years for a ruling by the Labour Court on the legality of the SAPS's Employment Equity Plan. Last year, the Labour Court found that the 2010-2014 plan was invalid and illegal because it contained quotas. The current plan, which is now being renegotiated following the Labour Court verdict and the Constitutional Court ruling in the DCS case) is the same as the previous illegal plan.
POPCRU and SAPU actively litigated against Solidarity to defend this plan.
In Solidarity’s recent court case on behalf of members in the Department of Correctional Services (DCS), where Solidarity also challenged the lawfulness of the DCS’s affirmative action plan, POPCRU also litigated against Solidarity to defend the affirmative action plan of the DCS. As in the case of the SAPS, the plan is based on achieving representivity in the workforce based on rigid racial quotas. The judgment was in favour of the Solidarity members.