Labour department accused of shielding sweatshops

The National Bargaining Council for the Clothing Manufacturing Industry says the labour department has unlawfully granted “amnesty” to certain non-compliant clothing factories. Illustration: Bronwyn Webb

• The National Bargaining Council for the Clothing Manufacturing Industry says some Newcastle factory owners have refused its inspectors access, claiming they are protected by an 18-month labour department pilot project.
• This follows the council taking legal action against clothing manufacturers it claims are contracting with non-compliant “sweatshops”.
• The council wants the Labour Court to declare that the department cannot suspend or defer compliance with the council’s collective agreement.

The National Bargaining Council for the Clothing Manufacturing Industry says the Department of Employment and Labour has unlawfully granted “amnesty” to some clothing manufacturers it claims are contracting with non-compliant “sweatshops”.

The council has launched an urgent application in the Labour Court in Durban, seeking an order that the department has no right to grant any grace period for compliance through its national advocacy pilot project in Newcastle, called “Decent Work in the Chinese Business Community, KwaZulu-Natal Province”.

It further seeks orders that any policy which interferes with its powers be declared unlawful. It also wants the 25 factories cited in the application to be bound by the main collective agreement and must allow the council’s investigators access to their premises.

The application is to be heard on 6 October with the department and the 25 cited factories to file opposing papers by 18 September. We will publish a report once the opposing papers have been filed.

In her affidavit, the council’s KZN general secretary, Chantal Naidoo, said it wants to “protect the integrity of its powers and functions”, particularly the power to monitor and enforce compliance with basic conditions of employment, including minimum wage agreements.

“That power is the council’s alone: no other body may enforce the main collective agreement and no other body may suspend, defer or excuse compliance with it,” she said.

Naidoo said the council had become aware that a group of 31 factories in Newcastle, known as G31, believed they were currently excused from compliance. This was based on their reading of the department’s Newcastle project, which suggested that full compliance would only be expected at the end of a proposed 18-month intervention period.

Naidoo said the council was not opposed to the project which had “laudable aims”.

“The crux of its challenge is that the project has been interpreted as relaxing, rather than strengthening compliance in respect of a selected group of factories to the exclusion of other textile manufacturers and in a manner which interferes with the exercise by the council of its powers to enforce compliance with basic conditions of employment.”

She said because of this, council officials had been refused entry into premises by owners who “appear to believe that a grace period … places them above the law and beyond the council’s reach”.

The department invited the council to a meeting in March 2026 when a “phase-in period” of 18 months was mooted for the G31 factories, but this was not agreed to by the council representative.

Later that month, 30 other clothing factories in Newcastle wrote to the department complaining that they had not been invited to the meeting and objecting to the “selective grace period” offered to the G31 factories.

Deputy minister Jomo Sibiya said that employers participating in the project would be “ringfenced for the purpose of implementing strategic compliance”, and that “while these companies would still be expected to comply with the Labour Laws, they would be assisted to do so in the manner that would be outlined in the project document”.

Naidoo said the meaning of Sibiya’s letter was unclear, but to the extent that it purported to grant amnesty to the G31 factories, was unlawful. Only the council has that power.

The impact on the ground for council inspectors was immediate, she said. A substantial number of factories evaded inspections and denied access to inspectors. In one case, inspectors were turned away by an “armed and aggressive” security guard.

At a meeting in June, the department indicated that it would issue a “compliance certificate” to the participating factories.

The council’s representative again made it clear that this was not lawful. However, later that month, the department sent out an implementation plan, indicating that resolutions had been adopted at the meeting.

Naidoo said no final decisions had been taken at the meeting.

The council sent letters of objection to the department but there was no resolution to the issue. “It is clear that the G31 factories are using the project as a tool to shield themselves from inspection and that they will do so to evade other compliance mechanisms invoked by the council unless and until this court intervenes to clarify the legal position,” Naidoo said.

“The more a culture of impunity is permitted to take root and become entrenched, the greater the challenge to reverse the trend and attain proper compliance. Impunity for the G31 [factories] will also have a detrimental effect on the culture of compliance of those who are currently compliant. Non-compliance by some creates an uneven playing field for others and renders them less competitive.”

Earlier this year, the council took legal action against two suppliers of fashion apparel in South Africa, Drake Clothing and Gemelli.

The council alleges that the companies are contracting with “sweatshops” that masquerade as co-operatives. Both companies are opposing the applications, which are still in the legal process.

Support independent journalism
Donate using Payfast