ASSOCIATION NEWS
SASA UPDATE
Update from SASA It has been yet another extremely interesting month for the private security sector! From the desk of Tony Botes, SASA National Administrator.
H
ere’s a summary of what’s been happening:
PSIRA (Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority) 1. Amended Act The Government Gazette (45295 of 8 October) is a bulky document of 52 pages, containing only the amendments to the PSIRA Act, and must be read in conjunction with the ‘old’ legislation, which has also been updated periodically. The changes are far too many to discuss in this article, but the dreaded ‘foreign ownership’ provision, which has been gathering dust on the desk of a number of presidents for many years, is now in force. It specifically stipulates that every security service provider (company) must now be 51 percent South African-owned and controlled. The Minister of Police, however, has the power to vary this percentage as he sees fit, which could be both positive or negative, depending on the decrease or increase that might result from such variation. 2. Research under the topic ‘The role of the NBCPSS in the Private Security Industry’ We have noted, with serious concern, that PSIRA is busy with research amongst security companies and security officers under the topic ‘The role of the NBCPSS on the Private Security Industry’. For some unknown reason, it seems as though PSIRA is under the impression that either they should ‘control’ the NBCPSS (National Bargaining Council for the Private
8
SECURITY FOCUS AFRICA OCTOBER 2021
Security Sector) or that the Bargaining Council is a challenge to their statutory authority. The basic facts are that PSIRA, which reports to the Minister of Police, is the primary and only regulator of the private security industry in the country, but only insofar as the registration of security service providers and security officers, and the enforcement of the PSIRA Act, Regulations and the Code of Conduct. PSIRA may issue fines against any company or individual, but it has no powers of restitution. It can take action against those that breach their legislation and issue fines against the relevant company and its directors, when it has been established that the monies have gone into their own coffers, but it does not have the powers to force companies to reimburse employees for underpayments or other breaches of the Main Agreement. On the other hand, the NBCPSS reports to the Minister of Employment and Labour via the Registrar of Labour Relations (a totally different government department), which was legally established in terms of the Labour Relations Act (LRA). The Bargaining Council is truly democracy at work, equally represented by organised employers (registered employers’ organisations) and organised labour (registered trade unions), who: • have a protocol agreement which sets out the relationship between the two groups, as well as the periodic negotiations in respect of remuneration and conditions and benefits of employment, • conduct negotiations in a peaceful
manner, • handle all compliance complaints and disputes relating to the Main and Levies Agreements, • handle all labour relations complaints (unfair labour practices, unfair dismissals, etc), • adjudicate non-compliance matters and, following due process, issue compliance orders (which have the same standing as a High Court Order) for underpaid or outstanding monies due to employees, which – if not settled – are delivered to the relevant Sherriff of the High Court to execute as a warrant of attachment — all of these also including, if relevant, costs and interest PSIRA does not have a mandate to get involved in these Bargaining Council matters and should rather be working with the Bargaining Council to eliminate the non-compliance, gross exploitation, and blatant theft so common in our industry. SASA believes that these two bodies, working together, can make a massive difference in terms of eradicating the fly-by-night elements in our industry and we are totally committed to assisting in this process. 3. Uniforms The recent promulgation on the prohibition of security uniform colours that, in any way, could be deemed to resemble any uniforms used by the SAPS (South African Police Service), SANDF (South African National Defence Force), Correctional Services, Metropolitan Police, or any other law enforcement agency that might be established in the future, is of serious concern. Similarly, all types of camouflage are now also prohibited, with the only exception being those engaged in anti-poaching duties. Furthermore, all uniforms must clearly display ‘Private Security’ on both the front and back, which is also a challenge, especially in situations where security officers are required to dress in suits and ties — how will this be possible or practical? While it is a reality that some service providers do, in fact, have uniforms that are in genuine conflict with those of the SAPS and other bodies, the industry – as a whole – now has to source alternative ‘permitted’ uniform colours. Keeping in mind that the 180-day window has now passed, the financial and logistical challenges of this regulation have
securityfocusafrica.com
