Cape Town - Trade union Solidarity is following through with its threat to take Dis-Chem to court after the pharmaceutical giant missed the Friday, October 21, deadline to indicate whether it had withdrawn its controversial ban on employing and promoting white people.
Solidarity legal matters spokesperson Anton van der Bijl said the union would be serving legal papers on Dis-Chem later this week after writing to it on October 18 threatening action if the controversial ban was not withdrawn by last Friday.
The furore began when an internal memorandum from Dis-Chem chief executive Ivan Saltzman, dated September 19, was leaked on social media a month later.
In the memo, Saltzman announced that the pharmaceutical giant was placing a moratorium on the hiring of white managers in a bid to improve its employment equity and transformation objectives.
Although the board apologised for the tone of the leaked memo, it did not take back its content and, as such, Dis-Chem ignored Solidarity’s threat and has maintained its position that it has an “unequivocal imperative” to continue its transformation journey.
The Dis-Chem board said: “We have always been cognisant of the imperative to comply with all legislation, including employment equity, on our journey to meet transformation targets, and with a priority of employment on merit, based on our view of giving employment preference to previously disadvantaged communities.”
Solidarity’s chief executive Dirk Hermann said: “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?”
Commission for Employment Equity chairperson Tabea Kabinde said to ensure compliance with the spirit and ethos of employment equity, Section 21 of the Employment Equity (EE) Act places the responsibility to implement employment equity in the hands of captains of industry.
Kabinde said: “Dis-Chem’s chief executive’s actions up to this point are compliant.”
Kabinde said while the leaked memorandum could be perceived to be malicious compliance, as it dealt with EE as a subject for chasing numbers instead of fully embracing the spirit and the letter of law, the Board’s response seemed to align EE to the values and ethos of the organisation.