EXTERNAL ASSESSMENT
UNIVERSAL LEAF SOUTH AFRICA
Dark Air Cured farmers in Limpopo, East and West Cape

Agricultural Labor Practices ProgramFebruary, 2017

External Assessment

Table of Content
Executive summary .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 3Market and company background .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 61. Implementation of the ALP Program .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 8

1.1. Commitment to the ALP Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.2. Strategy and objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.3. Internal capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.4. Communication of the ALP Code requirements to farmers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1.5. Internal monitoring: data collection, accuracy, and addressing issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1.6. Address systemic and/or widespread issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2. Farm-level assessment of working conditions regarding the ALP Code Standards.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 23

2.1. ALP Code Principle 1: Child labor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.2. ALP Code Principle 2: Income and work hours. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.3. ALP Code Principle 3: Fair treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.4. ALP Code Principle 4: Forced labor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
2.5. ALP Code Principle 5: Safe work environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
2.6. ALP Code Principle 6: Freedom of Association. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
2.7. ALP Code Principle 7: Compliance with the law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3. ALP Program: feedback from farmers, workers, and other stakeholders .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 40
Appendices.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 42
Appendix I – Universal Leaf South Africa’s Action Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Appendix II – Scope and methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Appendix III – Legal information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Appendix IV – Agreement for Accommodation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Appendix V – Communication materials. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Appendix VI – Analysis of farm data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Appendix VII – ULSA Producer ALP declaration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Appendix VIII – Glossary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

Executive summary

EXTERNAL ASSESSMENT
Universal Leaf South Africa

External Assessment

In February 2017, Philip Morris International (PMI)
requested Control Union (CU) to conduct an external
assessment of the Dark Air Cured tobacco growing
operations of its supplier Universal Leaf South
Africa (ULSA) in the Limpopo and Cape regions,South Africa. The assessment evaluated the labor
practices at contracted farms, and whether thesewere meeting the standards of the Agricultural
Labor Practices (ALP) Code. 1 CU also evaluated
ULSA’s internal capacity to implement the ALP
Program and their understanding of farm practices,and how issues were being identified, recorded andaddressed.
CU interviewed eight ULSA employees, one
PMI Region employee, and three stakeholders(Department of Labor at Lephalale, Skills for Africa,
and Emcare). Over a three-week period CU visited
20 farms in Limpopo and 19 farms in the Cape2
and interviewed a total of 40 farmers, 27 family
members and 142 external workers. All of the farm
visits were unannounced. On 11 farms the farmer
was not present at the time of the visit; in thesecases CU had to select alternative farms.
An
information
triangulation
methodology
was used to evaluate farm practices. The threesources included interviews, documentation, andobservation, together with a “Five Whys Analysis”
problem analysis. The “Plan, Do, Check, Act” cycle
was adopted for analyzing ULSA’s management
approach.
ULSA started with the ALP Program in 2012, and
had included all their contracted farmers in thescope. The contracted farms were mainly largescale, commercial operations with numerous
workers many of whom were living on site. As thetotal number of contracted farmers was relatively
low (77),2 ULSA only had management team of five
whose tasks included ALP implementation. Most of1.

2.

them had been working in their current positions forabout two years. The management team included an
ALP Coordinator (appointed in 2016), who did not
perform any coordination activities relating to the
ALP Program but mainly focused on worker training.
Universal Leaf Tobacco (ULSA’s international parent
company) has global policies on ALP, and ULSA
had also signed local ALP policies. Nevertheless,at ULSA the ALP Program was mainly perceived
as a compliance program, implemented to satisfy
customer requirements. Accountability was limited,as job descriptions included few ALP responsibilities.
Instead of focusing on actual behavioral change
at the farm, ALP-related targets focused mainlyon the number of farmers reached by initiatives
to address issues. Furthermore, Prompt Action
reporting and procedures were unclear; Prompt
Actions were only reported to a limited extent andonly focused on the Limpopo region. While the ALP
Coordinator addressed ALP-related topics to someextent during worker trainings, the two Agronomy
Managers focused on ALP implementation onlywith regard to Farm Profiles, farm categorizationand ULSA initiatives. Most of their time, however,
was dedicated to agronomy. Furthermore, no formal
ALP training was provided to the management of
ULSA and several gaps in their understanding of
ALP were identified. Although legal requirements
were understood well by the field team (ALP
Coordinator and Agronomy Managers), some gaps
were identified regarding the interpretation of the
ALP Code.
During the assessment CU noted that ULSA’s ALP
Program lacked a clear strategy. ULSA was focusing
its initiatives mainly on safe work environment andcompliance with the law. However, a more robust
review of the progress and overall ALP Program
performance was needed. Furthermore, continuity

The main goal of the ALP Code is to eliminate child labor and other labor abuses progressively where they are found,and to achieve safe and fair working conditions on all farms from which PMI sources tobacco (see link). For more
information on the background of the ALP Program see link.
The minimum sample size was 20 farms in Limpopo and 20 farms in the Cape, 20 being the minimum sample size
per homogeneous region when the total number of farms within a population is less than 400. At the time of theassessment, ULSA had contracts with 34 farms in Limpopo and 43 farms in the Cape. During the assessment in theCape region two contracts related to one farm and so the 19 farms were visited covering 20 contracts (20 farmers).
4External Assessmentof achieved improvements in the field was notsecured as initiatives and when they had ended,
were not followed up.
ULSA communicated ALP-related topics to farmers
mainly via email, phone and regular farm visits by
the field team. ULSA’s field team and farmers weregenerally aware of the legal requirements related to
ALP, but were not familiar with the ALP Code itself
and lacked understanding of several principles. ULSA
had distributed various communication materials to
inform farm workers about Green Tobacco Sickness(GTS) and the existence of a support mechanism.
The GTS poster clearly described the symptoms
and how to avoid it, however, the materials forcommunicating the support mechanism provided
only limited information and did not explain how
the mechanism worked. Worker awareness was
low for all ALP-related topics and legal rights,
including the legal minimum wage, legal benefits,
and legal requirements regarding the formalizationof employment.
During the assessment the CU team received only
limited socio-economic farm information as theelectronic data collection system, MobiLeaf, which
had been recently introduced at ULSA – was having
data warehouse problems. CU identified missing
and inaccurate data in the available information.
Furthermore, the system was not being used to its
full potential.
ULSA’s management team had performed a risk
assessment based on their knowledge of themarket. In addition, they had conducted two farmby-farm surveys to assess water quality and worker
accommodation on each farm. Neither of thesestudies included a root cause analysis to gain an
in-depth insight of the issues identified during thesurveys.
ULSA’s initiatives addressed only part of the issues
identified in their own risk assessment or CU’s
assessments. Furthermore, the impact of these
initiatives in the field was found to be limitedwith regard to several of the topics addressed.

For example, while training on safety and firstaid had been provided and GTS posters had been
distributed, awareness on these topics among
workers was still found to be low. Similarly, ULSA’s
initiative to promote corporate permits among
farmers to increase formalization of employment
had, at the time of the assessment, achieved only
limited results. In contrast, ULSA’s initiative toprovide water purification systems had a clearly
positive impact on the farms, as reflected by the
positive responses received by the CU assessment
team from both farmers and workers.
CU’s assessment demonstrates that practices
that do not meet the ALP Code and Measurable
Standards are present on South African tobacco
farms, including the lack of formalization of
employment, issues regarding fair treatment ofworkers, payment conditions and safety measures(among which inadequate worker accommodationand limited use of protective clothing and equipment
when required), and limited provision of water for
workers in the field.
Feedback received by the CU team from farmers,family members and external workers mainly
focused on the initiatives and support from ULSA in
general, and not specifically on ALP as only few of
the interviewees were aware of the ALP Program.
Several farmers mentioned that their knowledge
on national legislation, agronomy issues andwork safety had improved. ULSA’s field team also
received feedback from the farmers but had no
structured process in place to collect and report thisinformation.
The outcome of this assessment can be used asa tool to facilitate ULSA management to develop
a strategy of continuous improvement. CU
acknowledges ULSA’s commitment to addressing theissues identified and defining areas of improvement
through the implementation of an action plan (seeAppendix I).

5Market and company background

EXTERNAL ASSESSMENT
Universal Leaf South Africa

External Assessment

Dark Air Cured Tobacco growing in South Africa isconcentrated in three regions: the Limpopo in thenorth, and the East and West Cape to the south. In
general, tobacco farms in South Africa are largescale commercial operations with many workers
living on site. There are approximately 190 tobacco
farmers in the country, employing a total of 8,000 to
10,000 workers. Universal Leaf South Africa (ULSA)
focuses on sourcing Dark Air Cured (DAC) tobacco
only, while another tobacco company sources Flue
Cured Virginia (FCV) only. In 2017, ULSA had 77
contracts comprising 34 farmers in Limpopo and
43 farmers in the Cape. On average, the contracted
farmers in Limpopo had larger areas planted withtobacco (18 ha) than those in the East Cape (5.4
ha) and West Cape (3 ha). In 2016, ULSA sourced
85.6% of its DAC tobacco in Limpopo, 7.2% in East
Cape, and 7.2% in West Cape. Compared to 2015,
the quantity of tobacco bought by ULSA in 2016was 21% higher in Limpopo and 98% higher in West
Cape; while that sourced from East Cape was thesame.3

3.
4.

ULSA had direct contracts with all farmers, most ofwhom had been engaged with ULSA for many years.
For some farms ULSA had multiple contracts fordifferent fields, involving different family members.
Approximately half of the production sourced by
ULSA was for PMI, with the remaining volume soldto other customers.
In addition to growing tobacco, farmers in Limpopo
often owned and managed large areas for game 4 andvarious types of vegetables (total area of the farms
up to 4,000 ha). For East Cape farmers, the main
source of revenue was from citrus production, while
in West Cape many of the farmers raised ostriches.
An important difference between the regions is thelength of the tobacco growing season. In the Eastand West Cape the season (from planting to saled)around 12 months, while in Limpopo it is 16 months,
due to the difference in climate.

Based on information provided by ULSA during the opening meeting of the assessment.
Areas for hunting.
7

Chapter 1

Implementation of the ALP Program

EXTERNAL ASSESSMENT
Universal Leaf South Africa

External Assessment

1.1. Commitment to the ALP Program
On their global website Universal Leaf Tobacco(ULT), the parent company of ULSA, committed
publicly to the elimination of child labor and theimprovement of working conditions in tobacco
crop production. The website provided information
about the company’s policy on sustainability andsupply chain integrity,5 their commitment to the
ALP Code,6 and their membership of the ECLT
foundation, which advocates the elimination ofchild labor.7
In addition, ULSA had a local STP and Child Labor
policy signed 8 by their Managing Director. The
latter policy states that no children under 18 years
old should work in tobacco production, with the
exception that children 15 years and older areallowed to do light work and help on family farms.
The STP policy includes statements on health andsafety and child labor, and mentions that ULSA
commits to monitoring and assessing farmers’
compliance with South African labour legislationand the standard of living conditions.
ULSA’s staff mainly referred to the ALP Coderequirements in terms of the importance of meetingcustomer demands for continuity of the tobacco
business. The ALP Program was primarily perceived
as a compliance program.

1.2. Strategy and objectives
At the time of the assessment, ULSA focusedon the following ALP-related topics: (1) worker
accommodation, (2) personal protective equipment(PPE) for green tobacco sickness (GTS), (3) support
mechanism, and (4) worker training. However,
ULSA had no formal process in place for setting thestrategy and objectives for ALP implementation. A
basic risk assessment of the issues identified had

5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

been conducted and several initiatives had been,
or were being, implemented (see 1.6). The risk
assessment was based solely on the experience of
the ULSA management in the tobacco industry, but
not on information collected systematically fromthe farms.

ULSA response:“ULSA is in the process of reviewing the ALP strategy,
to have the program aligned with the organizational
objectives. This is expected to be completed by theend of October 2017.”

ULSA’s risk assessment 9 identified the following
practices as high risk:• Wages of all workers (including for temporary,piece rate, seasonal, and migrant workers) do notmeet the minimum wage
• Workers do not have access to a fair, transparent
and anonymous support mechanism• Farmers do not provide a safe and sanitary
working environment, and do not take allreasonable measures to prevent accidents, injury
and exposure to health risks.
• Workers involved with topping or harvesting
tobacco or loading barns have not been trainedon avoiding green tobacco sickness (GTS).
• Workers involved with the use, handling, orapplication of crop protection agents (CPA) orother hazardous substances, such as fertilizers,
have not received adequate training and do not
use the required personal protection equipment(PPE).
• Accommodation does not meet the basic needsof workers, and does not comply with national
legislation.

http://www.universalcorp.com/Resources/Policies/Sustainability_and_Supply_Chain_Integrity_Policy.pdf
http://www.universalcorp.com/Resources/Policies/ULT_ALP_CODE.pdf
http://www.universalcorp.com/Resources/Policies/ECLT_Foundation_Members_Pledge.pdf
Internal documents not publicly available.
The risk assessment used was based on PMI’s global template for GAP assessments. This template required ULSA to
identify the potential risks associated with each Measurable Standard, their probability and severity, to determine
the risk level.
9External Assessment• Farmers and workers have not entered into
written employment contracts and/or workers
have not received a copy of the contract.
• Terms and conditions of employment contracts
contravene national legislation.
These risks are all in line with CU’s findings. However,
CU identified additional risksconcerning illegal
deductions from workers’ salaries, shortcomings in
the provision of legal benefits, lack of clean drinking
and washing water and sanitary facilities near the
workplace (see chapter 2).
ULSA performed two in-depth surveys to map thesituation in the field: (i) a study on water quality(2015) which was related to their initiative toprovide farmers with water purification systems,and (ii) a study on the state of the housing provided
to workers (2016), recording all facilities and their
quality.
ULSA response:“With the improved internal focus on ALP and thefarmers understanding of the ALP program, future risk
assessments will be based on data gathered from farm
monitoring and other surveys. The risk assessment
will be conducted annually henceforth in the monthof September.
This will allow the organization to have a risk
assessment that is based on the identified issues andsupport the action plans to focus on the actual root
causes.”ULSA had not conducted root cause analyses forthe risks identified in the annual risk assessment,
nor for the risks identified in the additional survey
on accommodation. For the risks identified withregard to the payment of wages and provision ofcontracts, ULSA only mentioned in the annual risk
assessment that farmers should be required tocomply with legislation, without further actions
from ULSA. However, ULSA did develop initiatives
for improvement with regard to some of the risks
and set the following targets:• Improve housing for workers: Two pilot farms in2017 where ULSA plans to support the buildingof new accommodation facilities.
• Improve safety by engaging the NGO Skills for
Africa 10 for training: Targets were set for 2016
to provide training to 200 workers11 on different
topics (40 workers trained on CPA handling, 40
on pest control, 80 on tractor safety, and 40 on
work area safety). No targets had been set for2017 at the time of the assessment.
• Improve safety by engaging Emcare 12 (Limpopo)
and Klein Karoo Event Medics 13 (West Cape) for
first aid training: Target to train one First Aid
representative for every 25 workers per farm.
Targets were set to train 146 workers to provide
all farmers with the necessary trained workers.
• Promote corporate permits 14 amongst farmers
with foreign labor: For this initiative ULSA
defined the target as a significant improvement
in labor legalization, without quantifying thetarget.
• Provide water purification systems for clean
drinking water: In 2015, ULSA ran an intiativein Limpopo to provide farmers with water
purification systems, where necessary basedon the water quality survey. This scheme wascompleted in 2015, but was not available to thetwo new farmers contracted by ULSA after 2015.

10. http://skillsforafrica.co.za/
11. Total number of workers on farms within scope was 1467 (source: ULSA).
12. http://www.emcare.co.za/
13. Only a facebook page is available online: https://www.facebook.com/KleinKarooEventMedics/
14. A corporate permit is a temporary work authorisation granted to a corporate entity (e.g. a farmer), rather than theforeign employee, to employ a specific number of skilled, semi-skilled and/or unskilled workers. The permit enables
a corporate applicant to employ a number of foreign nationals determined by the Department of Home Affairs (seeAppendix III for more detailed legal information).
10External Assessment

Targets were not achieved for either of the safety
training initiatives; only 47% of the targeted 200
workers were trained by Skills for Africa, andonly 77% of the targeted workers were trained by
Emcare/Klein Karoo. According to ULSA, this was
because farmers did not send sufficient workers
to the training sessions. Partly because workers
without South African identity documents did not
qualify and farmers mentioned that they did notwant to send in workers as they were needed on thefarm to work. The two-farm pilot to improve housing
was met and buildings were under construction at
the time of the assessment.
For the risks related to the payment of wages andprovision of contracts, ULSA only mentioned that
farmers should be required to meet requirementsof legislation without further actions.
Although ULSA had started the above intiatives,
continuity was not guaranteed as they were notembedded in the company’s strategy, and after
completion of a project ULSA focused on othertopics. However, intiatives such as the provisionof water purification systems continue to be also
relevant for the new farmers who joined ULSA after
2015.

ULSA response:“…ULSA will focus its ALP program on inculcating
behavioral change at farm level and ensure that the
ALP policies reflect such.”

ULSA’s targets were mainly focused on a targeted
number of farms or workers rather than a change ofpractice or behaviour. The targets were reviewed
once a year in the STP report which is signed by theManaging Director. The 2016 report was reviewed
by CU and further details on the various intiatives
and targets are presented in 1.6.

1.3. Internal capacity
1.3.1. Dedicated organizational
structure
ULSA created an ALP Implementation Committee
including the Managing Director, Finance and afield team consisting of two Agronomy Managers
and one ALP Coordinator. The field team provided
a direct link between the management and the field.
Furthermore, ULSA worked closely together with
PMI Region and received regular guidance on theimplementation of the ALP Program.

Internal structure for ALP implementation

ALP Implementation Committee
Managing
Director

Finance

Agronomy Manager(Limpopo)

Agronomy Manager(Cape)ALP Coordinator

Farmers Limpopo(34)

Farmers Cape
(43)

11

External Assessment

1.3.2. Roles and responsibilities
In addition to his core task of managing thecompany, the Managing Director also coordinated
the ALP Program. However, ALP coordination was
not included in his job description, nor in any of
the job descriptions of other managers. The personpresented as the ALP Coordinator, who worked forseveral years at ULSA and joined the ALP team in
September 2016, was mainly focused on worker
training in one region (Limpopo) and played no role in
the actual coordination of the ALP Program. No one
was assigned to oversee, supervise and provide ALP
training in the Cape region, while communication
responsibilities were delegated to the Agronomy
Manager for this region. Although the Agronomy
Manager for the Cape region was responsible for
the MobiLeaf system, this was not included in his
job description.
The only ALP-related responsibility included in
the general job description for the two Argonomy
Managers was to update records and MobiLeaf
data accurately and regularly. The general job
description for the Financial Manager, who was alsopresented as a member of the ALP Implementation
Committee, did not include any specific ALP-related
responsibilities.
Furthermore, responsibilities such as drafting
the annual risk assessment, managing Mobileaf,or sending the quarterly ALP report to PMI were
not included in any of the job descriptions of themembers of the ALP Implementation Committee.
Finally, the element used by ULSA to evaluate
individual performance of the management team
were not linked to the targets mentioned in the job
descriptions.

ULSA response:• “…ULSA through the human resources department
and management, will review the key performanceindicators and job description of the agronomy
operations implementation team to clearly define
the ALP performance goals. This is expected to becompleted by October 2017.”• “With the support of the HR Department, thejob descriptions of all the ALP Implementation
Committee will be aligned to include the relevant
ALP responsibilities and ensure that individual
performance monitoring is aligned with their
responsibilities.”

1.3.3. Training and knowledge of the
ALP Program
ULSA’s management staff received guidance on
ALP from PMI’s Africa Region office. The Managing
Director had participated in one formal training
session provided by PMI in the United States in
2011, while the ALP Coordinator had participatedin an ALP training provided by Verité and PMI in
Malawi in 2016. Apart from these, management had
not received any formal training on ALP. Although
the Agronomy Managers and the Financial Manager
mentioned that they had received an explanation of
the ALP Program from the Managing Director, no
training materials or records were available.
For the field team,15 the following gaps in theirunderstanding of the ALP Code Principles wereidentified:
1. Child labor: All three members of the fieldteam were aware that 15 was the legal
minimum age for working with tobacco andthat children aged 15 to 18 years should

15. The field team consisted of two Agronomy Managers and the ALP Coordinator responsible for training workers in
the Limpopo region.
12External Assessment

be given light tasks only. The definition of
hazardous work was not clearly understood:
one member (33%) of the field team only
mentioned operating machinery as hazardous,
while another (33%) mentioned, in addition,that workers must wear proper protective
equipment. Only one (33%) of the field teamgave a full description of the definitionof hazardous work. Nevertheless, none
considered the application of suckercide fortopping as hazardous work.
2. Income and work hours: This ALP CodePrinciple was well understood by the fieldteam. All mentioned the correct legal minimum
wage and regular working hours, and were
aware of the legal benefits that should be
provided. Two mentioned the correct rate forovertime hours.
3. Fair treatment: The field team understoodthat workers must be treated fairly. Twoof the field team (67%) showed a morethorough understanding and mentioned that
there should be no discrimination, abuseor harassment. However, none of themmentioned that farmers must be available
to workers who want to discuss potential
grievances.
4. Forced labor: All three members of the fieldteam related the withholding of identity
documents and financial deposits to forcedlabor. One member (33%) related working
more than the regular hours to forcedlabor, while this issue is covered by the ALP
Code Principle of income and work hours.
Witholding payments or indirect payments
were not mentioned by any of the field teamas a risk of forced labor.
5. Safe work environment: The field team hada good understanding of the required safetymeasures for tobacco farms, such as the useof PPE, CPA storage, provision of adequate
accommodation, and keeping the environment
clean. However, none of them mentioned CPA
re-entry periods and the provision of clean

drinking and washing water. Furthermore, theapplication of suckercide for topping was notconsidered hazardous.
6. Freedom of association: All of the field team
had an adequate understanding of this ALP
Code Principle and mentioned that workers
should be free to join unions if they wanted
to.
7. Compliance with the law: All of the fieldteam mentioned that farmers should comply
with the law, and all were aware of therequirement to have employment contracts inplace. In addition, two (67%) mentioned that
farmers should inform workers about theirlegal rights.
The concept of Prompt Actions was not wellunderstood by the field team even thought this is
an important aspect of the ALP Program. Prompt
Actions were considered to be any urgent situation
not meeting the ALP Code standards, but no one
could give a clear description of what should beconsidered an urgent situation in this context.
ULSA response:“ULSA will implement intervention plans in the2017/18 crop year that will focus on improving theknowledge of the country team through:• ALP coordinator will attend the ULT Regional ALP
Training Programs and participate in the regional
ULT STP committee.
• ALP coordinator to liaise with other ULT ALP
coordinators in the region to leverage on theirexperience and benefit from cross market visits.
• ALP coordinator to use the gained knowledge
to formalize training for the ULSA ALP teamto improve their overall knowledge on the ALP
program.
• Align the ALP training material to coincide with thecrop calendar to ensure that training is focused on
issues that are more prevalent during that period.”13

External Assessment

1.3.4. Internal communication
ULSA operated with a small field team (see 1.3.1)
and communication was mainly informal via email
and phone. In addition, their agenda included a slot
on Fridays to hold a conference call meeting whennecessary. However, no minutes were taken forthese meetings. Furthermore, quarterly meetings
were held to discuss ALP and STP issues (among
other topics), but no minutes were available of thesemeetings either.
PMI Region visited ULSA regularly, and received
a quarterly report including an ALP update withstatistics on ALP communication to farmers, aPrompt Action summary, and planned tasks. ULSA
also compiled an STP report for 2016 covering
seven projects, including the status and targets set
for the 2017 crop season.
ULSA response:“To improve on internal communication and ensurethat there’s traceability of all the ALP discussions andother STP topics, ULSA will develop a formal meetings
guideline for all the STP meetings by Oct of 2017.
Furthermore, a STP meeting will be formalized tooccur on a monthly basis, at which the ALP program
will also be discussed.”

1.4. Communication of the ALP Coderequirements to farmers
1.4.1. Communication strategy andtactics
ULSA informed farmers on ALP topics mainly during
regular farm visits, as well as by email and phone.
Furthermore, ULSA organized group meetings,
locally referred to as study groups, on a quarterly
basis. Although the focus of these meetings was
mainly on agronomy related topics, ALP topics
were sometimes discussed as well. All farmers
joined a Whatsapp group to communicate with
the Agronomy Managers, nevertheless only two

farmers mentioned that they had received ALP
related information through this channel.
ULSA’s field team paid regular visits to the farms,
and each farmer reported being visited at least on
a monthly basis. These visits focused mainly on
agronomy-related topics to ensure a good tobacco
crop. To improve communication on ALP-related
topics, ULSA started employing an ALP Coordinatorin 2016, to support the Agronomy Manager in the
Limpopo region. However, in practice this ALP
Coordinator mostly spent time on worker training
to reduce Non-Tobacco Related Material (NTRM);
only 13 of the 40 farm trainings held in Limpopo in2016 dealt with safety topics. In the Cape region,
the Agronomy Manager worked on his own (i.e.
without help from the ALP Coordinator) and did
not conduct any ALP-related trainings. One farmerin this region reported understaffing, while theAgronomy Manager himself confirmed he did nothave sufficient time to provide the 43 farmers in
the Cape with adequate support on Agronomy, STP
projects and ALP.
ULSA provided its farmers with informationand documents via email including information
regarding the ALP Program and ALP Principles.
However, many farmers mentioned that they had
not read the materials.
ULSA produced communication materials regarding
GTS16 and the support mechanism, and distributed
these among their farmer base (see Appendix V):• GTC poster: Had a clear description of thesymptoms of GTC and how to avoid it. The poster
was distributed to farmers and was seen hanging
at many of the farms visited (see Appendix V).
• Support mechanism poster and business cards:
The poster and business cards were handed out
to farmers and their workers to promote thesupport mechanism and increase awarenessof the telephone number. The materials were
distributed at the beginning of 2017 (seeAppendix V).

16. Locally referred to as Green Tobacco Condition.
14External Assessment

Five farmers visited (13%) were familiar with the term ALP and could recall several ALP Code Principles.
However, most of the farmers, when asked specific topics, had a limited awareness (see table below). Two
farmers (5%) could not relate any topics to the ALP Code Principles.
Topics that were mentioned most often by farmers included safe work environment, income and work
Hours, and child labor. These topics were also best known among farmer family members, who in mostcases were involved with farm office tasks. Among external workers, awareness was low for all topics
related to the ALP Code Principles.

Level of awareness of ALP Code Principles*
Farmers (T=40)**

Family members (T=27)

External workers (T=142)

Child labor

19 (48%)14 (52%)13 (9%)

Income and work hours

20 (50%)14 (52%)19 (13%)

Fair treatment

17 (43%)7 (26%)

13 (9%)

Forced labor

12 (30%)4 (15%)

3 (2%)

Safe work environment

27 (68%)16 (59%)18 (13%)

Freedom of association

6 (15%)

3 (11%)

3 (2%)

Compliance with the law

17 (43%)9 (33%)

0 (0%)* Interviewees could not recall the exact ALP Code Principles, however, they could name related topics.
** On one of the 39 farms visited ULSA had contracts with two farmers, hence T=40.

Farmers mentioned being informed about ALP-related topics in study group meetings, and several referredto the ULSA emails and regular visits by the ULSA field team. Both knowledge transfer between the farmers
and workers on ALP and the impact of worker trainings by the ALP Coordinator seem to have been limited,
eventhough several workers reported they had been trained by the ALP Coordinator.

Means of communication through which ALP-related information was received*
Farmers (T=40)
Study group meetings

22 (55%)

Emails from ULSA

11 (28%)During regular visits by the ULSA field team

10 (25%)

Department of Labor

4 (10%)Whatsapp from ULSA

2 (5%)*Farmers could be informed in multiple ways.

15

External Assessment

Means of communication through which ALP related information was received*
Family members

External workers(T=27)(T=142)

Verbally from the ULSA field team

14 (52%)5 (4%)

Emails from ULSA

5 (19%)-

Department of Labor

2 (7%)-

Verbally from the farmer

1 (4%)

7 (5%)ULSA training by ALP Coordinator-

9 (6%)

From other external workers-

2 (1%)

Newspaper-

2 (1%)

Labor acts displayed at the farm (no ULSA initiative)-

2 (1%)

Poster-1 (1%)*External workers and family members could be informed in multiple ways.

For 12 (27%) of the foreign migrant workers in Limpopo, communication with the farmer was a challenge as
they did not speak the same language as the farmer. In these cases workers spoke mainly Tswana, Shona andNorthern Sotho, but were not able to speak English, and the farmer often had to talk through his foreman.

ULSA response:

documented on MobiLeaf on a monthly basis. The“ULSA will review and update its ALP training

training and communication will be aligned to farmer

materials before the end of December 2017.

categorization,

Prevalent ALP topics and updates will be discussed

benchmarks and the associated benefits. ALP training

during all ULSA and farmer meetings, including

material will be aligned to coincide with the crop

detailed discussion on the contents of the ALP

calendar to ensure that training is focused on issues

documents with each farmer before handing it tothat are more prevalent during that period. Bestthem to sign. The MobiLeaf electronic data collection

practices from other ULT markets in the region will betool will be used as validation to confirm document

evaluated continuously to establish their application

handouts. The frequency of training of farm workers

on ULSA farms.”

assessing

performanceagainston ALP topics will be increased, monitored and16External Assessment

1.4.2. Farmers’ responsibilities

farm level. Farmers with recurring noncompliance

ULSA included three clauses 17 in the growing
contract, stating farmers’ responsibility to meet
the ALP-related requirements of the law regardingchild labor, income and work hours, fair treatment
and employment of foreign labor. Also, in 2014,
farmers had to sign an ALP declaration including
statements on all seven ALP Code Principles (seeAppendix VIII).
ULSA implemented a farmer categorization (see1.5.2) to incentivize them to comply with/adopt
the ALP Code ranked from A to D, and linked thisto a financial benefit. The categorization included
seven ALP related topics. Farmers were provided
with an overview by email to notify them of theircategorization.

ULSA response:• “ULSA will continue to categorize all contracted
growers according to individual production yieldand quality, as well as including key ALP related
issues into the process. All contracted farmers will
receive an ALP rating on formalized employment
agreement that comply with all applicable laws
and ALP principles (including corporate permits),
recycling of CPA containers, compliant worker
accommodation, first aid trained employees and
PPE availability and use. Farmer categories will
be linked to benefits such as crop advances andpremium prices for tobacco purchases. Category
A to C farmers will receive a pre-sale advanceon their estimated crop size while Category D
farmers will not qualify for this benefit.

Thepurpose of the program is to motivate farmers
rather than penalizing them, encouraging themto achieve the intended behavioral changes atand failure to take corrective actions are more
likely not to be contracted the next season. ULSA
started implementing this aspect of the action
plan in June 2017 and the target is to complete
the implementation to 100% of all the contracted
farms for the 2017/2018 season.”• “The farmers’ contracts will be amended to include
the clause that the employer will not hire any
labour without verifying the ID, passport, birthcertificate and/or asylum documents to validate
age by June of 2018. This will be monitored by field
staff during their routine visits and unannounced
visits henceforth.”

1.5. Internal monitoring: data collection,accuracy, and addressing issues
ULSA was collecting three types of ALP-related
data about their farms: socio-economic information(Farm Profiles; see 1.5.1); situations not meeting thestandard (see 1.5.2); and Prompt Action reports (see1.5.3). Even though the data was in line with PMI’s
approach and was compiled in a quarterly reportshared with PMI’s Region Team, limited actual
analysis was done to investigate the root causes ofidentified situations not meeting the standard.
The Agronomy Managers were tasked withobtaining all Farm Profile data, however, several
items were missing, incomplete and/or inaccurate(see Appendix VI). Due to its recent introduction
at ULSA the MobiLeaf 18 system was not yet runningsmoothly and most data was still being collected in
Excel. At the time of the assessment, information in
MobiLeaf was not accessible due to problems withthe data warehouse. In addition, ULSA mentionedthat there were challenges to adapt the MobiLeaf

17. ALP clauses in ULSA’s growing contract: “b. Compliance with the agricultural labour practices as set out in the South
African Basic Conditions of Employment Act of 1997 and the Buyer’s STP program. (1) The Seller shall neither hire
nor use people under the age of 18 years in any activity connected with any of the stages of Tobacco production. The
buyer will not purchase any tobacco from a Seller who uses the work of people younger than 18 years. (2) Compliancewith applicable laws relating to employment, the payment and fair treatment of workers. (3) The Seller will obey theSouth African legislation with regards to the employment of migrant foreign labour.”
18. This handhled system is used worldwide by Universal to collect farm data.
17

External Assessment

system to the South African market and its largescale farms, where the dynamics are different
compared to markets with smallholders (for which
MobiLeaf was originally designed).
These challenges resulted in ULSA not having a
reliable data source with which to fully understandall risks and issues and to implement effective
initiatives to address them.

1.5.1. Socio-economic data: FarmProfilesSocio-economic information for Farm Profiles wascollected by the Agronomy Managers during theyear using two systems in parallel: MobiLeaf andExcel. The Mobileaf information has been used as
the basis for the assessment, as this was reported
by ULSA to be the most updated. The problems withthe database as mentioned in 1.5 meant that only
limited information on Farm Profiles was available
during the assessment. Therefore ULSA provided
file extracts of the Farm Profile information from
MobiLeaf in Excel. 19 CU verified this Mobileaf dataand identified missing information for 18 (45%) of
the profiles and incorrect information for 11 (28%)
of the profiles (see Appendix VI). Furthermore,
the information provided covered only a limited
number of the topics of the original PMI FarmProfile. Information on the following topics was notprovided: (1) family members on the farm (except
for spouse information), (2) ALP Communciation tofarmer and (3) living conditions.

1.5.2. Systematic monitoring: situations
not meeting the ALP Code standards
At the time of the assessment, ULSA had not yet
started with farm-by-farm monitoring, and did not
yet closely monitor farm practices throughout theentire season to analyze whether these met the
ALP Code standards. However, in 2017 ULSA did
start recording farmers’ performance on several

agronomy topics and seven ALP topics 20 to assess
whether farmers were meeting the requirements
in relation to ULSA’s farm categorization. For eachof these topics ULSA recorded whether or not
the farmer met the requirements, however, no
additional qualitative information was added. Basedon the agronomy and ALP topics together, farmers
were graded from A (best) to D (worst), which
determined the price premium they would receive
for their tobacco. At the time of the assessment
the Agronomy Managers were still using Excel tocollect this information, however, ULSA stated thatthey planned to integrate data collection for farm
categorization into Mobileaf as an additional survey.
CU verified the information recorded in the
categorization Excel files. For all farms thecategorization data was available, however, forthree Limpopo farms (16%) and seven Cape farms(39%) the categorization records did not fully matchwith the situation on these farms (see Appendix VI).

ULSA response:“ULSA is in the process of improving the systematic
farm monitoring process, with specific focus on
improving the accuracy of data that is being collected
to ensure 100% of farm profile data accuracy. ULSA
will also be addressing the current challenges thatare being experienced with Mobileaf and is working
on having it fully operational and adopted to thecommercial farms setup by end of Aug 2017. To
achieve this ULSA will:• Assign the task of fine-tuning the Mobileaf system
to one of the agronomy managers who has abackground of information management systems
and who will henceforth be the MBL coordinator
for the organisation.
• Implement a process to monitor MobiLeaf user’s
operational efficiency individually.

19. Topics included in the Farm Profile information provided to CU: (1) Name and birthdate of spouse, (2) Hectares andkilos of tobacco, (3) Number of laborers, according to type (temporary, permanent and migrant) (4) Type of contract
per type of laborer.
20. ALP topics included in the farmer categorization: Hand in CPA Container, Labour Contract, Corporate Permit, Legal
Accommodation, First Aid Trained, CPA PPE, GTC PPE.
18

External Assessment• Implement a periodic process to validate data
accuracy using the droidSurvey* data application
at the farms.
• Use the data captured in the central database
to conduct regular analysis that will identify andaddress blind spots.
• Identify ALP code standards not meeting targets
and have them discussed during STP ALP
committee meetings.
• All farms to receive a minimum of 5 visits during acrop year as part of monitoring.”• “droidSURVEY is a business application compatible
with Android devices to assist with the collectionof field online/offline data and its synchronisation
with an internal database.”

1.5.3. Prompt Actions
The ALP Coordinator was responsible for recording
Prompt Actions for the Limpopo region. This meantthat no Prompt Actions were reported from theCape region. At the time of the assessment, ULSA
was not yet using MobiLeaf for recording Prompt
Actions, and hence provided Prompt Actions for
November 2016 in an Excel format. Furthermore,
the ALP Coordinator could not yet enter information
into MobiLeaf as he was still using a ‘trainee version’
which did not allow this.
Prompt Actions were not discussed or communicatedwith the farmers. In total, eight Prompt Actions
were reported in November 2016 of which five
related to workers harvesting without gloves andthree to workers topping without gloves. For allthese Prompt Actions the listed ‘recommended
action’ in Excel was to offer workers training on
GTS. However, this overlooked the fact that, fortopping, the risk of working without gloves is not
only related to GTS but also to the application ofchemicals (i.e. suckercide). Furthermore there wasno list provided with recommended actions in caseother types of Prompt Actions were identified.

Compared to the range of situations not meetingthe standard as identified during the CU farm visits,
the number of reported Prompt Actions by ULSA
was low. Situations identified by CU included thefollowing: pregnant women involved with topping,no drinking and/or washing water available, CPA
containers being reused for water storage or otherdomestic needs, wrong CPA storage, and working
at height without safety equipment. Furthermore,while ULSA only reported Prompt Actions for the
Limpopo region, CU also identified Prompt Actionsin the Cape.
No clear escalation process was decribed regarding
the reporting of Prompt Actions, although thefield team did mention that they directly informed
their superior (the Managing Director) in case they
identified a Prompt Action. Furthermore, no clear
overview was available of the follow-up actions
required in case of a reported Prompt Action.
Furthermore, as mentioned in 1.3.3, the meaning ofPrompt Actions was not well understood by the fieldteam. They defined Prompt Actions as all situations
not meeting the standard in case the situation wasconsidered to be urgent. However, there was no list
available of situations that should be considered
Prompt Actions, no clear description of whenexactly a situation should be considered urgent, andno clear definition of the period for follow-up.
CU verified six of the reported Prompt Actions
on the farms visited, and in four cases (67%)
identified the same incidents during the visit, eventhough they were marked as ‘completed’ in the list.
Furthermore, in all cases the column ‘reported tofarms’ was marked ‘yes’, while none of the farmers
were aware of the reported Prompt Actions. The
ALP Coordinator confirmed that farmers were notinformed.

19

External Assessment

ULSA response:“ULSA acknowledges the finding of CU on thecollection of prompt action data and realizes that it
is an area of improvement that requires a systematicchange to the process and an investment in theknowledge of the field team. To do that, ULSA will befocusing on the following:• Working with the regional ULT team to have astandardized Prompt action guideline that will
be addressing the process for opening and closing
PA’s, follow up, escalation and repeated offenders
which is expected to be completed by end of Sep
2017.
• Ensure that all the field team members are trainedon the PA guideline by the ALP coordinator by the

1.5.5. Improvement plans for individual
farms
ULSA did not agree with farmers on improvement
plans for their farms. Although ULSA had drafted
STP improvement plans, including ALP topics, forthe previous crop season (2016), these had notbeen updated; there had been no tracking of the
progress, nor had there been any follow-up to theseplans. The main reason for this was that the actionof producing improvement plans was considered
completed and focus had shifted to other initiatives(see 1.6). As mentioned above, Prompt Actions were
not being communicated to farmers so it was notpossible to agree on an improvement plan based onthese.

end of Oct 2017.
• Ensure that prompt actions are discussed with
farmers and action plans are agreed on.

ULSA response:“ULSA field staff conducted a farm by farm ALP review• All prompt actions will be pre-loaded and collectedduring April 2017 to review current ALP conditions

through the MobiLeaf system from end of Jun

per individual farm. ULSA will draft individual farm2017.

improvement action plans by the end of October• Prompt actions will be reviewed periodically for2017.”

realignment of priorities during the season. 100%of Prompt Actions to receive a follow up visit andto check for re-occurrence.”

1.5.4. Data management and analysis
ULSA stored farm data either in Excel or MobiLeaf.
As 2016 was the first year of ULSA using MobiLeaf,
several functions of MobiLeaf were not utilized
at the time of the assessment, such as farm-byfarm monitoring and Prompt Action reporting. The
Agronomy Managers were responsible for inputting
Farm Profile data into Mobileaf (see 1.5.1). However,they still recorded the categorization data (see 1.5.2)
in Excel, and provided this to the Managing Director
via email. The ALP Coordinator was responsible forreporting Prompt Actions and also used Excel tocollect and report this data. The person responsible
for checking data was the Managing Director.

1.6. Address systemic and/or widespread
issuesBased on the risks and issues identified (see 1.2), leaf
tobacco suppliers are expected to address systemic
and/or widespread issues through operational(STP) initiatives, community programs (possibly
supported by PMI’s Contributions) and engagementwith key stakeholders.
At the time of the assessment, ULSA had
implemented the following operational initiatives:• Accommodation pilot: Acknowledging thatworker housing in general was not meeting thelaw or ALP standard, ULSA started an initiativein 2016 to improve farm accommodation
for workers. South African law sets out legal
requirements for paid housing only, i.e. in casehousing deductions are made from workers’

20External Assessment

salaries. ULSA stated that from 2017 onwards,
they will apply these same requirements tohousing that farmers provide to workers for free.
At the beginning of 2017, ULSA started with apilot on two farms to construct new housing units.
CU visited one of these farms and verified that
housing was under construction. The plannedbuildings were communal housing, with one unit
consisting of clusters of three rooms measuring
three by three meters each. The building plansshow that each room will have a door and glass
window and electricity. In addition, ULSA had
prepared a contract for workers to sign in orderto formalize the housing agreement between
farmers and workers. This contract referredto the law in general, but did not explicitly set
out the legal limits on housing deductions (seeAppendix IV).
ULSA provided the two farmers participatingin this project with a loan to construct the new
housing units. ULSA calculated the period for
repayment by the farmers based on the legallyallowed deduction from workers’ salaries forcommunal housing. As presented to the farmers,
ULSA found that the best option (in terms of thehighest legally allowed deduction) was to register
the housing in units of three, and calculate thededuction for each unit as being 25% of a worker’ssalary, divided over the three workers hiring theaccommodation. Based on this ULSA had chosen
to build communal housing consisting of clustersof three rooms, each measuring three by threemeters.
Depending on the outcome of the pilots, ULSA
plans to allow other farmers to participate in
the initiative. The wider project is planned to becompleted byr December 2019.
• First-aid training from Emcare (Limpopo) andKlein Karoo Event Medics (West Cape): ULSA
engaged Emcare and Klein Karoo Event Medics
to provide farmers with the opportunity to train

their workers in first aid to improve generalsafety on the farms. This intiative was run in2016 and 16 Limpopo farms (89%) and sevenWest Cape farms (58%) participated in firstaid training provided by Emcare (Limpopo) orby Klein Karoo Event Medics (West Cape). For
East Cape farmers ULSA had not identified thefirst-aid training needs, as these farmers were
GlobalGAP certified. Farmers who participatedin this initiative declared that they found thetraining useful, mentioning that workers were
now able to help each other in case of injury andthat it had created general awareness on theimportance of first aid on their farms. However,some farmers also mentioned the problem that
this knowledge had been lost when several
trained workers left their farms. Some Cape
farmers reported that they had not been able
to send their workers to the training sessions asthese were organized during the working season,
when the workers were needed at the farm.

ULSA response:“…the remainder of the farms were trained in Januaryof 2017. Refresher trainings will be conducted every
second year henceforth.”• Safety training from Skills for Africa: Fourteen
Limpopo farmers (70%) had participated in safety
training sessions provided by Skills for Africa
in 2016. These farmers stated that the training
initiative was useful and they saw the benefit oftraining workers on safety issues. Training wasprovided on the following topics: safe CPA usage,
tractor safety, and farm safety.

ULSA response:“ULSA will continue on the same initiative on anannual basis to improve on this aspect.”21External Assessment• Water purification systems: This initiative ran
during the 2015 crop season. Based on water
quality tests on the farms, ULSA provided water
purification systems as needed to its farmers. Of
the ten farms where CU checked this initiative,
eight had been provided with a water purification
system. One of the two farmers who had notreceived a system was not contracted by ULSA
at the time of this initiative.
At the farms where purification systems had
been installed, farmers and workers confirmedthat they were very satisfied with the cleanwater. The cost for installing these systems werecovered by PMI for 53% and by ULSA for 29%;
the farmers had to contribute the balance of18%..
• Corporate permits: To provide farmers withsupport on how to apply for a corporate
permit, ULSA engaged a labor lawyer and laborconsultant. Both attended a study group meetingin the Limpopo area in August 2015 to explain
the application process to the farmers present.
This initiative focused on Limpopo as foreignlabor was most common in this region.

The above mentioned initiatives were implemented
by ULSA to address several farm-level and systemic
and/or widespread issues. However, no concrete
actions had been taken (yet) to address the following
issues:• Payments below the legal minimum wage andillegal deductions from workers’ salaries• Inadequate provision of legal benefits toworkers• Inadequate provision of sanitary facilities,
drinking water and washing water near thework place.
• Pregnant women working with CPA for
topping.

ULSA response:“ULSA will review on a regular basis all the STP
initiatives conducted and determine needs foroutstanding farms where necessary on an annual
basis.”Of the Limpopo farms, three farmers had acorporate permit (16%) and five (26%) reported
that they were in the process of obtaining one.
Farmers reported that the costs of obtaining a
corporate permit were very high and that it took
a long time to obtain the permit; they also statedthat the government was slow and not willing tocooperate on this matter. Two farmers who werestill waiting for their permit had started theapplication process more than a year before.

22Chapter 2

Farm-level assessment of working conditions
regarding the ALP Code Standards

EXTERNAL ASSESSMENT
Universal Leaf South Africa

External Assessment

This chapter describes CU’s assessment of theworking conditions on ULSA contracted farms
with regard to the ALP Code Principles andMeasurable Standards. ALP Code Principles areshort statements designed to guide farmers on
specific practices, resulting in safe and fair working
conditions. A Measurable Standard defines a goodpractice and over time can be objectively monitored
to determine whether, and to what extent, the labor
conditions and practices on a tobacco farm are inline with each ALP Code Principle.
CU identified two farm practices that affected
multiple ALP Code Principles.
First, it was found that 11 Limpopo farms (55%) andtwo Cape farms (11%) (foreign) migrant workers
did not have a valid work permit for South Africa,
resulting in two standards not being met. The
undocumented status of these workers meant that
farmers could not provide these workers with legal
employment contracts and thus their employment
could not be formalized as required by law. In
addition, these undocumented workers could not
be registered for the UIF (Unemployment InsuranceFund) or COIDA (Compensation for Occupational
Injuries and Diseases Act), and thereby were notprovided with all legal benefits.
Second, the large number of workers on farms
resulted in several standards not being met. Farmers
took disciplinary actions, such as some illegallydeducting fines from the salaries of workers who
did not behave properly (see 2.1.6); several casesof verbal harassment were identified (see 2.3.1);
and on two farms, workers were reported fighting
amongst each other (see 2.3.2). Farmers also had
challenges with the reliability of their workforce, as,for example, workers sometimes showed up drunk
after the weekend. Several farmers also reported
that workers did not show up for work after
receiving payment of benefits from the government.

2.1. ALP Code Principle 1: Child labor

There shall be no child labor.

Main findings and challenges

2.1.1. Children working and activities
performed
For the farms visited no evidence was found ofchildren below 15 years being employed 21 norof child family members below 13 helping withtobacco. However, CU did find one Cape farm (5%)
employing two 17 years old children who wereinvolved in hazardous activities (see graph below)
and who each worked full shifts several days a week.
Tobacco-related activities children
were involved with

1

Topping

Harvesting

2

Stringing2

Loading/Unloading...

2

Bundling

2

Grading2

1

Bailing012

Number of children*Hazardous activities

21. The legal minimum age for working or helping with tobacco is 15 (see Appendix III for more detailed legal information).
24

External Assessment

Underlying factors that increase risk
CU identified several underlying factors that
increased the risk of child labor:
1. Farmers did not always check the identity
documents of their workers. This was thecase for the Cape farmer who employed two
17 year old children thinking that they wereolder.
2. Awareness of the legal minimum working age
was low, among farmers and workers. Of all
farmers visited, 29 (74%) were unaware of
the legal minimum working age. While mostthought it was 18, it is important that farmers
distinguish that for non-hazardous work,
the minimum working age is 15. On 36 farms(92%), workers were unaware of the legal
minimum working age.
3. Awareness of hazardous work was low among
workers: on 30 farms (77%), workers wereunable to define what constitutes hazardous
work. Farmer awareness was higher, with
only 10 (26%) unaware of the definition of
hazardous work. Working with chemicals was
generally seen as hazardous, but harvestingand stringing activities were not always
considered as such.
4. Workers did not always have valid identity
documents, which made it difficult forfarmers to ensure that they were above thelegal working age.

Analysis and priorities
Although the number of children found working on
ULSA farms was limited, and no evidence was foundof children below 13 involved in tobacco-related
activities, there was a risk of child labor. As workers
often did not have valid identity documents, farmers
were unable to validate that they were above thelegal minimum working age. Awareness among
farmers and workers regarding the legal minimum

working age and definition of hazardous work was
low. Although ULSA distributed posters on GTS(see 1.4.1 and Appendix V), awareness levels on this
topic were also poor, indicating that communication
efforts have not had the desired effect.

ULSA response:“ULSA is committed to its policy of working toeliminate child labour in the tobacco leaf supply
chain, and this includes the protection of children’s
rights on farms supplying tobacco to ULSA. ULSA will
therefore ensure that all farmers and farm workers
are fully aware of the legal minimum working age
training on the principle of child labour and the typeof work suitable for under 18 years old, focusing
mainly on hazardous tasks. In increasing awarenesson hazardous tasks, ULSA will also be distributing thelist of hazardous tasks to all their farmers.”

2.2. ALP Code Principle 2: Income andwork hours
Income earned during a pay period or
growing season shall always be enoughto meet workers’ basic needs and shall beof a sufficient level to enable the generation of discretionary income.Workers
shall not work excessive or illegal work
hours.
Main findings and challenges

2.2.1. Payment of workers
Nine Limpopo farmers (45%) and seven Cape farmers(37%) paid their workers below the legal minimum
wage.22 Salaries were either calculated hourly, daily,
weekly or on a piece rate. Piece rate payments were

22. At the time of the assessment, the legal minimum wage for South Africa was ZAR 14.25 per hour (or ZAR 2,779 amonth). This was in the process of being increased to ZAR 15.39 an hour. The next planned rise in salary for tobacco
workers is planned for 2018, which will increase the minimum wage to more than ZAR 20 an hour. (see Appendix III
for more detailed legal information)
25

External Assessment

calculated based on kilos of tobacco harvested or the weight of nails 23 collected when destalking tobacco
leaves. The breakdown of the salaries is shown in the tables below.

Breakdown of calculated salaries Limpopo (T=40)

Salary range

Salaries

Salaries

Salaries

Salaries

0-10

10<12

12<14.25≥14.25

(ZAR/

(ZAR/

(ZAR/

(ZAR/

hour)

hour)

hour)

hour)

Hourly wages--

2 (13%)

13 (86%)

13.30

14.25

13 (9%)

Daily wages-

3 (75%)

1 (25%)

-

10.29

12.56

19 (13%)

Piece rate

1 (33%)

2 (67%)

-

-

8.5

11.00

Type of wages

LowestHighestExternalsalarysalaryworkers

(ZAR)

(ZAR)

(T=142)

Breakdown of calculated salaries Cape (T=39)
Salaries

Salaries

Salaries

Salaries

0-10

10<12

12<14.25≥14.25

(ZAR/

(ZAR/

(ZAR/

(ZAR/

hour)

hour)

hour)

hour)

Hourly wages-

1 (8%)

Daily wages-

Weekly wages-

Type of wages

5 (83%)
1 (100%)Worker awareness of the legal minimum wage
was low; at 15 Limpopo farms (75%) and 14 Capefarms (74%) workers were unaware. Although
farmer awareness was higher, with 13 in Limpopo(65%) and 16 in the Cape (84%) knowing the legal
requirements, several still underpaid their workers.

2.2.2. Payment schedule
All Limpopo farmers and 18 Cape farmers (95%)
paid their workers regularly in accordance with thelaw.24 At one Cape farm, workers received part oftheir salary at the end of the season, contrary to the

Salary range

LowestHighestExternalsalarysalaryworkers

(ZAR)

(ZAR)

(T=142)11 (92%)

11.42

15.39

13 (9%)

1 (17%)

12.50

14.76

19 (13%)

-

NA

10.59

law. However, these workers were relatives (nieces,nephews) of the farmer.

2.2.3. Work hours
No evidence was found of workers working morethan the maximum legal hours25 or workers notreceiving at least one day of rest per week. Work
was between eight and nine hours per day on mostfarms. In several cases workers worked ten hours
a day, which is legally allowed as long as thesehours are compensated over a four-month period26;
however, no evidence was found in the farmers’

23. The weight of nails in this case was a measure for the amount of deleaved stalks as each stalk contained one nail.
24. Payments must be made at least once a month (see Appendix III for more detailed legal information).
25. Maximum legal work hours were 45 regular hours per week and nine regular hours per day, with a maximum of 5hours of overtime per day (see Appendix III for more detailed legal information).
26. The extension of 5 extra hours a week is only allowed for a maximum period of 4 months in any continuous period of
12 months and these hours should be reduced by the same number of hours during a period of the same duration in
the same twelve months (see Appendix III for more detailed legal information).
26

External Assessment

administrative records that this compensation had
been paid. The longest period of work identified
during the visits was 51 hours in a five-day working
week.
All farmers in the Cape region paid overtime hours,
however, on seven Limpopo farms (39%) workers
did not receive the legal overtime rate. 27 On those
farms, workers received either a fixed daily wage,
independent of the hours worked, or piece rate
payments.

2.2.4. Legal benefits
Fifteen Limpopo farmers (75%) and eight Cape
farmers (44%) did not provide their workers withthe legal benefits to which they were entitled bylaw, such as leave and sick leave.
In addition, 12 of these farmers did not pay the
Unemployment Insurance Fund (UIF) 28 for all theirworkers, affecting their right to claim compensationin case they became unemployed. Furthermore,on two farms where accidents had happened,
workers were not compensated for lost workdays
via COIDA.29 In both these cases, workers had
been injured by a tractor, and did not receive anycompensation while they were unable to work forseveral months.
The main reason for the lack of legal benefits
was that many workers had not formalized theiremployment and so were not registered with therequired government institutions. It was alsodifficult for farmers to obtain a corporate permit 30, which they needed to facilitate working permits
for their foreign laborers (see 1.6). Finally, farmers
declared that workers who were employed for only
short periods would not benefit from UIF anyway,
as the amount they could claim would be very little.

2.2.5. Illegal deductions
Five Limpopo farmers (25%) and eight Cape farmers(26%) made deductions from their workers’ salaries
that did not comply with the law. In these cases,
farmers deducted amounts that were too highfor accommodation, for UIF 31 (2-10%, instead of1%) and/or for loans (maximum allowed: 10%). In
addition, four farmers deducted fines (ZAR 5-500)
from workers’ salaries for misbehavior or being late
for work. In one case, a farmer deducted half a day’ssalary from all workers’ salaries when something
was stolen on the farm. Farmers reported thatworkforce reliability was a challenge, as explainedin the introduction to this chapter, however,
several did apply appropriate ways to discipline
their workers and kept records of the disciplinary
warnings issued to workers.

Analysis and priorities
ULSA provided legal information regarding income
and work hours to farmers via email and had an
initiative to encourage farmers to apply for a
corporate permit. However, no further efforts weremade to improve the range of issues identified forthis ALP Code Principle. While some of the issues
identified by CU were also included in ULSA’s risk
assessment, ULSA had not identified the inadequate
provision of benefits or illegal salary deductions as
widespread issues.
Employment of undocumented workers poses a risk,
because these workers were not covered for legal
benefits. The registration for COIDA and UIF isimportant to ensure that workers are compensatedwhen needed.

27. Farmers should pay 1.5 times the agreed wage for overtime hours (see Appendix III for more detailed legal
information).
28. Each worker who works for more than 24 hours per month is required to contribute to the UIF. (see Appendix III for
more detailed legal information).
29. Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act. (see Appendix III for more detailed legal information).
30. Corporate permits can be utilized to provide foreign labor with valid working permits. (see Appendix III for moredetailed legal information)
31. The UIF deduction should be 1% of the worker’s salary. The farmer has to make a matching contribution of 1%. (seeAppendix III for more detailed legal information)
27

External Assessment

In combination with the findings on Fair treatment(see 2.3), it can be concluded that farmers facechallenges to manage the large number of workers
living on their premises. Farmers adopt their own
disciplinary methods, such as deducting fines fromworkers’ salaries, to ensure that workers met their
expectations and instructions. It is important for
ULSA to investigate the root causes and work onsollutions that are in line with the law and the ALP
Code.

2.3. ALP Code Principle 3: Fair treatment

Farmers shall ensure fair treatment ofworkers. There shall be no harassment,
discrimination, physical or mental punishment, or any other forms of abuse.

Main findings and challenges
ULSA response:“…ULSA will ensure that at all its contracted farmers,
all workers, including foreign workers, are trainedon the ALP code of income & work hours, increase
visibility and promote the use of the support
mechanism, and in partnership with the DoL, train
them on the BCEA between July 2017 & June 2018.
During the training period, ULSA will also ensure thatthe summary of the BCEA summary and details of the
support mechanism are displayed at all farms that
tobacco is sourced and will distribute copies at farms
that don’t have the summary.
To administer compliance, the field staff will monitor
and validate availability of contracts, wages, payment
schedule, deductions and provision of legal benefits
as part of the standard monitoring process throughMobileaf. The system will prompt the validation at
every visit that is conducted at a farm. Over and above
the monitoring, privately discuss with the workers,
especially the vulnerable groups like the migrant
workers to validate if they are receiving all the legal
requirements. As part of the categorization process,farmers that are not adhering to the requirements
and not showing improvements are unlikely to becontracted with ULSA going forward. This message
gets reiterated during the quarterly meetings (study
groups) that ULSA has with the farmers.”

2.3.1. Treatment of workers
No evidence was found of physical or sexual abuse on
any of the farms visited.32 However, at three Limpopo
farms (15%) and two Cape farms (11%) workers
reported that they had been verbally harassed by
the farmer by being shouted at and called names.
At one farm several black workers reported thatthe white farmer swore at them and called thembaboons, which is a form of discrimination.

2.3.2. Workers fighting amongst eachother on the farms
One Limpopo farmer (5%) and one Cape farmer(5%) reported that their workers sometimes foughtwith each other. These fights happened outside
work time but on the farm premises as the workers
lived there. The cause of these fights was reported
to be excessive alcohol consumption. On one farm
the farmer’s wife explained that the situation had
improved after alcohol was banned from their farm.
However, on the other farm the farmer mentionedthat he did not want to get too involved in the
personal life of his workers and therefore did nottake any preventive measures. Although the farmers
themselves were not involved in the fights, the factthat they took place on their premises means they
are responsibile.

32. By law employees must not be subjected to verbal and/or psychological abuse, sexual harassment or physical abuse.
Furthermore, the constitution prohibits discrimination and everyone has the right to human dignity respected andprotected (see Appendix III for more detailed legal information).
28

External Assessment

2.3.3. Support mechanism
Support mechanisms facilitate workers’ accessto information and can remedy, assist workers in
difficult situations, and mediate disputes between
farmers and workers. Leaf tobacco suppliers to PMI
are expected to ensure that farmers and workers
have access to such a mechanism.
Several weeks before CU´s assessment, ULSA had
started communicating the support mechanism
telephone number of Limpopo’s local Departmentof Labor (Lephalale) to farmers and workers in that
region (see Appendix V). During the farm visits, 18
Limpopo farmers (90%) were aware of this support
mechanism, and on eight Limpopo farms (40%)
workers were also aware. None of the farmers or
workers reported that they had used the line in the
short time it had been operational.
ULSA’s standard operation procedure for the
support mechanism required a monthly report fromthe Department of Labor on the grievance issues
reported33. However, at the time of the assessment
no reports were available for review, as the service
had only started operating some weeks earlier.
When evaluating the support mechanism, CU foundthat the Department of Labor had no separate
procedure for the support mechanism and provided
its regular services to the caller. If someone
contacted the line with a potential issue, theDepartment of Labor would send an inspector to thefarm in question to investigate. The checklist usedby the Department of Labor to verify farms mainly
consisted of topics related to income and work
hours34. The following topics mentioned in ULSA’s
support mechanism poster and business card were
not covered by the Department of Labor’s service:
Forced labor, unfair treatment, sexual harassment
and abuse (Appendix V) while they were not covered.
None of the staff at the Department of Labor hadreceived training on ALP as the general perception
was that all topics were already covered by theirown internal operational and training systems.

In the current setup the Department of Labor playsa central role in the support mechanism. However,undocumented foreign laborers are unlikely to use
this service as they run the risk of being identified
and sent back to their home country if they contact
a government institution. Indeed, the Departmentof Labor confirmed that they would have to informthe Department of Home Affairs if they came acrossillegal workers (or illegal residents), which would
send them back to their home country if they wereillegal workers.
Another requirement for an adequate support
mechanism is that the service should ensure
anonymity to provide a secure environment forworkers and farmers to discuss their grievanceissues. However, during a check call by CU, theoperator first asked for the name and location of
the caller. When the caller explicitly requested
to remain anonymous, this was accepted by theoperator. However, this incident indicates thatcallers of the support mechanism may be asked for
personal data, which could scare them off.
With regard to ULSA’s communication on the support
mechanism, there was no indication to farmers
or workers as to what to expect after reporting
an issue, for example that an inspector would besent to the farm to investigate the reported issue.
Two farmers outside the pilot area were includedin the communication and they reported that the
telephone number listed on the communicationmaterials was not applicable in their region.
In addition to external/formal support mechanisms,
farmers should make themselves available to theirworkers to discuss potential grievances before they
escalate. However, on one farm in Limpopo (6%)
workers reported that they could not discuss issues
with the farmer or the foreman (who was too close
to the farmer, according to the workers). On two
Cape farms (11%) workers reported that they would
not discuss potential issues with the farmer as they
were afraid to do so.

33. The standard operation procedure for the support mechanism was not formally signed by the Department of Labor
at the time of the assessment.
34. The inspections of the Department of Labor mainly focused on topics related to income and Work Hours, such as
payments, provision of benefits, pay slips, COIDA and UIF.
29

External Assessment–– Have at least a monthly meeting with DoLULSA response:• “ULSA has developed a working relationship withpersonnel to review the cases that havethe Department of Labour (DoL), who conducts

been reported and discuss improvements ofroutine unannounced compliance visits to all thethe SM system.

farms, including ULSA contracted farms. ULSA
will maintain regular contact with the DoL toensure that all ALP issues what may occur on thecontracted farms and picked up by the DoL arereported to ULSA and resolved in good time.”• “The Department of Labour…also visit farms
unannounced on a regular basis as the custodiansof the BCEA. As part of the monthly feedbackon the support mechanism, ULSA will obtain
feedback from the DoL where they have identified–– Get monthly feedback on grievance reports
in writing from the DoL.
–– ULSA to lead the way to assist in thebuilding of a trust relationship between the
DoL and contracted farmers.
–– ULSA will as part of the due diligenceprocess, conduct test calls to the SM every
6 months and review the follow up processduring the monthly feedback sessions.”

any violations from their farms.”• “During the CU assessment, shortcomings on thecommunication of the support mechanism wereidentifed, as it does not elaborate on the process
following any report made under the mechanism.
This is particularly relevant for migrant workers
who may be concerned about their legal status if
they use the support mechanism. To address thisissues ULSA has reviewed the procedure of the
support mechanism and updated the training andcommunication materials.”• “As part of maximizing the effectiveness of the SM
during the pilot phase, ULSA will be focusing on
the following areas in the 2017/18 crop season.
–– Together with DoL re-training farmers andfarm workers on the functionality of the SM

Analysis and priorities
ULSA started promoting a support mechanism inearly 2017 and although operational for several
weeks, farmers and workers had not yet made useof the service. Communication materials on themechanism had been distributed among farms, butlacked an explanation of how the mechanism worked
and what to expect after reporting a grievance (forexample, that an inspector of the local Departmentof Labor would be sent to the farm). This should
be addressed. In addition, it is important that theservice is available to all workers at the farm,
which was not the case as undocumented foreign
workers would be unlikely to contact a government
institution.

and increase awareness through pamphlets
and business cards.
–– Ensure

that

both

parties

understandfully the benefits of using the system
where necessary and what to expect after
reporting a grievance.
–– Include in the training of the Fair Treatment
principle the ALP code topics that are not

The findings presented in this chapter (verbal
harassment, discrimination, workers fighting eachother) demonstrate that a support mechanism isneeded for this market. Additionally, further root
cause analysis is required to better understandthe dynamics at the farms and identify effective
solutions.

covered by the SM and give the workers
guidance in the other options available.

30

External Assessment

2.4. ALP Code Principle 4: Forced labor

All farm labor must be voluntary. There
shall be no forced labor.

Main findings and challenges

2.4.1. No evidence of involuntary labor
No evidence was found of workers unable to leave
their employment, employed against their will, or ofcontracted prison labor. Also no evidence was foundof workers being obliged to pay a financial deposit.35

2.4.2. Fences
At one Limpopo farm (5%) workers who wanted toleave the farm premises at night had to climb over anelectric fence because they did not have the key tooperate the gate. Although the gate was often open
during daytime, it was closed at night for security
reasons.

2.4.3. Identity documents kept
At one Limpopo farm (5%) workers handed in theiridentity documents to the farmer. Workers declaredthat they had requested the farmer to keep their
documents for safekeeping so they would not lose
them. However, this posed a risk of forced labor, as
workers did not have access to the stored identity
documents and were dependent on the farmer to
get their documents back.

2.4.4. Delayed payments
At three Limpopo farms (16%) and one Cape farm(5%) wage payments had been delayed one or moretimes. In one of these cases the farmer reported
that he sometimes delayed payments until after
the weekend so workers would return to finish thework.
ULSA response:“As part of the continuous annual training on ALP
program and specifically the forced labour principle tothe farmers and farm workers, there will be increased
awareness of the situation that might constitute

ULSA response:“Security is a high risk in most areas of South Africa
and more especially in the farming community, which
are in the remote and isolated areas and often without
adequate infrastructure. The practice of having

forced labour. This will include the retention of copies
of form of identification, instead of the keeping theoriginal documents, the use of labour brokers (withthe help of DoL) and payments (as discussed under
I&WH principle).”enclosed premises, therefore becomes practical andnecessary in this instances. ULSA recognizes theimportance of achieving an appropriate balance so
as avoid the unintentional potential of restricting thefree movement of workers.”

Analysis and priorities
CU did not find evidence for widespread issues
regarding the ALP Code Principle on forcedlabor. Nevertheless, it should be understood byfarmers and workers that workers should always
have access to their identity documents, and thatpayments should be made on time, without delay.
Also, workers should always be able to leave thefarm premises if they want to do so.

35. According to the law, an employer has a general duty of care to provide and maintain a working environment that issafe and without risk to an employee’s health. This includes: eliminating or mitigating hazards or potential hazards toemployees’ health and safety; taking measures to ensure that everyone in the workplace complies with the OHSA’s
requirements; ensuring that work is performed under the supervision of an individual trained in safety issues andable to take precautionary measures (see Appendix III for more detailed legal information).
31External Assessment

2.5. ALP Code Principle 5: Safe work
environment

Main findings and challenges

2.5.1. Training and awareness of GTS
At 17 Limpopo farms (85%) and 17 Cape farms(89%) workers responsible for handling green
tobacco were not trained on the avoidance ofGreen Tobacco Sickness (GTS), referred to as Green
Tobacco Condition (GTC) by Universal worldwide.
In fact, 11 of the Limpopo farmers (55%) and nine
Cape farmers (47%) were unaware of the existenceof GTS and/or how to avoid it. Some farmers eventhought it was some kind of cancer caused by the
tobacco plant. As a result, these farmers either did
not think it was necessary to train their workers,
or were unable to train them. Consequently, thenumber of farms using protective clothing was
limited, as shown in the following table:

Farmers shall provide a safe work
environment to prevent accidents andinjury and to minimize health risks.
Accommodation, where provided, shallbe clean, safe and meet the basic needsof the workers.

Number of Limpopo
farms (T=40)

Number of Cape farms(T=39)

Salaries 0-10 (ZAR/hour)

Salaries 10<12 (ZAR/hour)

Long-sleeves

8

4Gloves6

7Long pants

8

3

Shoes/boots

8

3

Rain gear

3

5Type of protective clothing used

In addition to the limited awareness of the existence
and avoidance of GTS, another reason why safety
clothes were not used was that they were considered
uncomfortable to wear in high temperatures. On
farms where protective clothing was available, inmany cases the supply was insufficient to provide
all workers that worked with green tobacco with thenecessary protection.

operations in the region. The training on GTS and its
prevention must be aligned with the crop calendar
to begin prior to topping, harvesting and curing.
Continuous monitoring and refresher training where
necessary must take place during each farm visit.
ULSA registered the use of PPE as a non-funded
STP and recently, following the sourcing of suitable
GTS PPE, issued farmers with the appropriate PPEULSA response:“…ULSA will improve the farmer and farm worker
knowledge on the avoidance and prevention of
GTS through training programs per farm, andusing training materials available from other ULT

where no PPE was available. The training sessions
will include the demonstration of the PPE to enable
workers to understand the use of it. Farmers to be
encouraged to take a leading role in ensuring thatnecessary precautions against GTS are taken on theirfarms.”
32

External Assessment

2.5.2. Training and handling of CPA
Handling CPAs proved to be a challenge, in particular for Limpopo farmers. 36 On 15 Limpopo farms (79%)
and three Cape farms (16%) CPAs were not stored safely (see following table). In addition, on 12 Limpopo
farms (67%) and 17 Cape farms (89%) people handling CPAs were not properly trained. However, on all
farms visited the equipment for CPA application was found to be in good condition.

Number of Limpopo
farms (T=40)

Number of Capefarms (T=39)

CPA storage not locked

62

CPA containers lying around at the farm

4

-

1

1

No ventilation in storage

3-

Red label chemicals not stored separately

42

CPA stored in a fridge that could not be locked

1-

Inappropriate CPA storage

Chemicals spilled on the floor of the storage and notcleaned up

At 13 Limpopo farms (68%) and ten Cape farms (53%), those responsible for applying CPAs did not use
the complete set of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). The main reason was that they were unawareof the necessity to wear (the complete set of) PPE. Others cited the discomfort of wearing PPE in hightemperatures, and farmers not providing PPE because they did not think it was necessary. Workers did not
use PPE during the application of suckercide for topping, on any of the farms visited, as this chemical was
wrongly considered to be non-hazardous.

Number of Limpopo
farms (T=40)

Number of Capefarms (T=39)

Overall/Apron

2

7

Mask

5

7

Boots

5

6

Gloves6

7

Goggles

32

CPA stored in a fridge that could not be locked

1-

Type of PPE for CPA application

36. According to the law, an employer has a general duty of care to provide and maintain a working environment that issafe and without risk to an employee’s health. This includes: eliminating or mitigating hazards or potential hazards toemployees’ health and safety; taking measures to ensure that everyone in the workplace complies with the OHSA’s
requirements; ensuring that work is performed under the supervision of an individual trained in safety issues andable to take precautionary measures (see Appendix III for more detailed legal information).
33

External Assessment

ULSA response:• “Farmer and farm worker knowledge on the
avoidance and prevention of CPA contaminationneeds to improve through appropriate training
programs. Continuous monitoring and refresher
training where necessary must take place during
each farm visit.
ULSA registered the use of PPE as a non-funded
STP to ensure commitment towards addressing theissue. Recently, following the sourcing of suitable
CPA PPE, farmers were issued with appropriate

At 13 Limpopo farms (68%) and ten Cape farms(53%), those responsible for applying CPAs did
not use the complete set of Personal Protective
Equipment (PPE). The main reason was thatthey were unaware of the necessity to wear (thecomplete set of) PPE. Others cited the discomfort
of wearing PPE in high temperatures, and farmers
not providing PPE because they did not think it
was necessary. Workers did not use PPE during
the application of suckercide for topping, on anyof the farms visited, as this chemical was wrongly
considered to be non-hazardous.

PPE where no PPE was available on farms.”• “…training session, in local languages, was

ULSA response:

completed on 15 August 2017 when a certified“ULSA training and training materials to be provided

supplier completed a CPA handling training course

to improve the knowledge of farmers and farm

which included more than 75% of the farms inworkers about the dangers of re-entering CPA treated

Limpopo. All workers that attended the training

fields. Farmers to understand the risks of and towill be issued with certificates. The training

prohibit workers from entering a recently treatedsessions included the demonstration of the PPE

field. All treated fields must be clearly marked withto enable workers to understand their application.

appropriate signage which includes the use of a red

Farmers are encouraged to take a leading role inflag or specific warning signs. Farm specific signs

ensuring the necessary precautions exist for CPA

must be known to all workers on the farm to enableapplication on their farms. The same training willthem to identify the recently treated fields. Farmers

follow in the Cape growing areas and the target isare encouraged to take a leading role in ensuring

to cover 100% of farms by September 2018.”

that necessary precautions against treated fields areadhered to. Farmers and farm managers must takeresponsibility and implement a warning system by
October 2017.”

34

External Assessment

Fourteen Limpopo farmers (82%) and eight Cape farmers (53%) did not adequately dispose of empty CPA
containers, as shown by the table below.

Number of Limpopo
farms (T=40)

Number of Cape farms(T=39)

Empty containers lying around at the farm

4

5Containers being burned-

1

Containers used for applying fertilizer-

1

Containers not being pierced

4

1

Containers used for drinking water

6-

Disposal of empty CPA containers

ULSA response:“ULSA will train the farmers to rinse empty CPA
containers three times in succession with one quarterof the container volume clean water (this is triple
rinsing) and rinse water must be decanted into thespray bowser. Triple rinsed empty containers may not
be stored for longer than three months at any givensite unless that site is registered as a waste collection

On three Limpopo farms (15%) and four Cape farms(21%) pregnant and/or nursing women were foundto be involved in topping tobacco plants (a totalof three women in Limpopo and five in the Cape).
Moreover, the women in question were not wearing
the required PPE. Pregnant women are considered avulnerable group and should not be involved in any
activities involving chemical application (regardlessof wearing PPE).

and storage site. It is therefore imperative that farmers
dispose of their empty triple rinsed containers at least
once every three months. ULSA provides a disposal

ULSA response:site at the buying station in Limpopo and farmers“ULSA understands that pregnant women may

from time to time dump empty containers at the site

often not disclose their pregnancy status due towhich is recorded per farmer. ULSA has also initiatedcultural beliefs or try to hide it in fear of losing theira process by which a registered recycling service

employment as a result of their condition. Farmers

provider collects empty CPA containers and otherwill be trained to provide training to their workers

plastic and hazardous materials directly from farms.

and create awareness of the risks for pregnant womenThis process has commenced from August 2017 andand nursing mothers of carrying out hazardous tasks

farmers are issued with recycling certificates by thesuch as topping tobacco or dealing with CPAs, and ofservice provider. A similar system will be adopted

opportunities for light work instead, without fear ofin the Western Cape growing area by the end of

discrimination. Farmers will also be encouraged to

2018. In the Eastern Cape, CPA vendors collectexplain alternative placing methods that will be usedempty containers as part of the farmer GlobalGAP

in the event that an employee will fall pregnant andcertification process.”need to be employed in non-hazardous conditions.”

35

External Assessment

2.5.3. Clean drinking and washing water
At ten Limpopo farms (53%) and two Cape fams
(11%) workers were not provided with clean
drinking water near the work place. In these cases,
workers had to bring their own water, but thiswas not enough for the whole day. At two farms in
Limpopo, workers reported they drank from theriver because the water supply at the farm wasinsufficient. Furthermore, washing water and soap
was not available near the work place at 17 Limpopo
farms (94%) and 15 Cape farms (79%).

a mobile option which includes a toilet, washingarea and reservoir with clean water, all fitted on a
trailer that can be moved around with the labor. All
contracted farms have been mandated to supply thenecessary facilities to workers with effect from thecommencement of the 2018 crop season in August
2017. This will be monitored by the field team during
the regular farm visits and captured in the Mobileaf
system.”2.5.4. Accommodation
ULSA response:“ULSA reiterated to the farmers of their obligation
to supply workers with clean drinking water at
the workplace. Availability of toilets and sanitaryfacilities to workers at the workplace is a legal
requirement. If water points are not available near
the work area, water should be made available inclean containers which can be transported to theworkplace. Sanitary facilities must be within walking
distance from the workplace. At a farm group meetingin Limpopo during June 2017, farmers were shown

At 16 Limpopo farms (89%) and 11 Cape farms(65%) workers’ accommodation was found to beinadequate, as shown in the table below. In general,these farms were large commercial farms, withmany workers living on the farm. The quality of the
housing varied between farms and also within afarm, with some workers having better housing thanothers. In general, worker accommodation in theCape was in a better state than in Limpopo. Unsafe
conditions in the table below includes housing withcracks with collapse risk and unsafe electric wiring
inside the house.

Number of Limpopo
farms (T=40)

Number of Cape farms(T=39)

Lack of toilets

14

4

No ventilation

8-

Lack of space

5-

Broken windows or no windows

123

Holes in the roof/leaking roofs

84

Makeshift housing

4

1

Unsafe conditions

8

1

36

External Assessment

ULSA response:• “To improve on farmworkers accommodation,
ULSA conducted a pilot project between Jan – May
2017, which was a success (details will be discussed
under the SWE action plans). The learning from

However, at two Limpopo farms (10%) and threeCape farms (16%) workers were working at height
without safety harnasses to protect them fromfalling. On these farms the workers had to climb
curing barns up to three levels high to hang the
tobacco.

this pilot will be used to define an action plan tohave all farm worker accommodation meeting theminimum standards on all ULSA contracted farms.”

ULSA response:• “An individual farm accommodation assessment“ULSA will also issue all the farms with suitable andwas completed during May to August 2017 toenough harnesses for workers who hang tobacco at

establish the full requirement for new houses,

height in curing barns by Nov 2017 and offer themhouses to be renovated and sanitary services totraining on the safe use of harnesses.”

be improved. ULSA will compile a project planand calculate the feasibility of pre-financing
farmers to improve worker living standards. The
project is planned to run over 3 years and action
and development plans will be drafted for eachfarm with specific goals set. This will also easethe monitoring and validation. Farms with serious
noncompliance will be first with the completion
date set for the end of 2019.”

Underlying factors that increase risk
Farmers reported that it was challenging for them tokeep their workforce trained on safety issues, whentrained workers left the farm and new workers not
yet being trained. Furthermore, most farms werelarge and had a lot of machinery around. During
the assessment two accidents with tractors wereidentified, in which two workers were injured to theextent that they could not work for several months.
The workers had hitched a lift on the tractor withseveral others to transport themselves around thefarm.
Nevertheless, most farmers had resources available
on the farm to act in case of emergency and hadtaken basic safety measures, including: havingtransport available to go to hospital (39 farmers;100%); keeping a first-aid kit on the farm (22; 56%);
ensuring safe storage of equipment and tools (35;92%); and providing first aid training to workers(21; 54%).

Also, at 12 Limpopo farms (67%) and 13 Cape farms(72%), workers were not provided with sanitaryfacilities close to where they worked. In these cases,
workers had to go home or use the bushes, eventhough this was often forbidden by the farmer. On
one farm records were kept of workers’ toilet time,and on another farm workers were only allowed to
go to the toilet during breaks.

Analysis and priorities
CU found many situations not meeting the standard
with regard to this ALP Code Principle. ULSA has
addressed some issues with initiatives, providing
water purification systems, training on first aid
and safety, and support with building new worker
accommodations. However, there are manyremaining issues for improvement including the lowawareness of the risks related to tobacco farming(such as GTS and working with CPAs), the low ratesof PPE usage, and living conditions not meeting theminimum legal requirements. In summary, although
the efforts taken by ULSA should be acknowledged,these efforts have not yet been sufficient to fully
address all the issues identified.

37

External Assessment

2.6. ALP Code Principle 6: Freedom of
Association

2.7. ALP Code Principle 7: Compliancewith the law

Farmers shall recognize and respect

Farmers shall comply with all laws ofworkers’ rights to freedom of association

their country relating to employment.

bargain collectively.
Main findings and challenges
Main findings and challenges

2.6.1. Workers’ right to freedom of
association
No evidence was found of farmers disrespecting theworkers’ right to freedom of association.37 Although
there were some worker unions active in theregions, most of the workers were not associatedwith these. Only at one farm did workers mention
being members of a union, however, they reported
that they were not satisfied with the union’s
activities and did not see any positive effects fromtheir membership.

Analysis and priorities
This ALP Code Principle was not a focus area for
ULSA which is understandable as there seemed
to be no risk of violation of the workers’ right tofreedom of association, and workers could join oneof the labor unions in the region if they wanted
to. Furthermore, the field team had adequate
knowledge of this topic.

2.7.1. Information on legal rights
Typically, workers were only informed about thebasic employment conditions at the farm where they
were hired, such as the wage they would receive, thehours they needed to work, their tasks, and payment
conditions. At 13 Limpopo farms (72%) and six Capefarms (32%), workers were not fully informed about
their legal rights regarding, for example, the legal
minimum wage, employment formalization, and thelegal minimum rate for overtime hours. At three ofthe farms, workers had already been working forseveral weeks but still did not know what their wage
would be.
Farmers in general were aware of the legal rights
of workers but did not inform their workers about
these rights. Some farmers were not aware of their
responsibility to give this information, while others
reported that they did not inform workers who
would be staying for only a short period.
ULSA response:• “All contracted growers must inform and explain to
all workers, including foreign workers, their legal
rights and include their terms and conditions of
employment in a formalized document. All farms
must display an official poster informing labor of
their legal rights.”• “Increase farmer awareness on their obligation
to inform all employed workers, including foreignlabor, about their legal rights. ULSA to supply

37. The constitution states that everyone has the right to form and join a trade union and that no employee may bedisadvantaged or discriminated against for exercising their right to join a trade union (see Appendix III for moredetailed legal information).
38

External Assessment

farmers with an official document of terms andconditions indicating employee legal rights.
Farmers must ensure that these documents areclearly displayed within the work areas. The
workers legal rights must be included in a formal
agreement between the employer and employee.
ULSA will address this issue at farm level by theend of September 2017.”

ULSA response:“ULSA to increase the farmer and farm worker,
including foreign labor, knowledge on employment
conditions and more specifically ALP Code toformalize employment. Validate worker contracts
and inclusion of all benefits. During August 2017
ULSA supplied all farmers with a legal template
document as a basis for formalizing employment
contracts with local or foreign worker categories.

2.7.2. Formalization of employment
According to South African law, all workers should
receive written particulars of employment. 38 At 14
Limpopo farms (70%) and 11 Cape farms (65%) the
farmers had not entered into a written employment
contract with all their workers. At these farms theworkers also did not receive written particularsof employment. At one farm in Limpopo and five
farms in the Cape, some of the workers confirmedthat they had received an employment contract. At
13 Limpopo farms and six Cape farms none of theworkers said they had received an employment
contract.
CU identified several reasons why these workers
had not received formal employment agreements.
First, in the case of 11 Limpopo farmers (55%) andtwo Cape farmers (11%), contracts had not been
prepared for undocumented foreign workers who
had no valid working permit. Second, most farmers
did not have a corporate permit to facilitate theprocess for foreign workers to obtain a working
permit due to the bureaucracy involved (see 1.6).
Third, Limpopo is close to the border with Botswana,
Zimbabwe and Mozambique, and many migrant
workers cross over to South Africa in search of jobs.
These workers often have no identity documents orworking permit.

These documents have been compiled according tolegislative requirements. ULSA will endeavor to haveall employment formalized on all the contracted
farms by March 31st 2018.”

Analysis and priorities
In their risk assessment, ULSA acknowledged therisks of workers not being informed about theirlegal rights and not having employment contracts.
CU confirmed that farmers generally did notinform their workers about their legal rights, andso awareness of legal rights was limited among
workers. In particular, foreign workers often did nothave written contracts and so ULSA had started an
initiative to promote the use of corporate permits
among farmers by engaging a labor lawyer and laborconsultant. However, many farmers indicated thatthe bureaucracy made it difficult to obtain these
permits and so they lacked the means to contract
foreign workers in a legal manner. Employment of
undocumented foreign workers has an effect onseveral ALP Code Principles as mentioned in the
introduction of this chapter.
The knowledge of the field team on this ALP CodePrinciple needs to be improved. In particular,
more attention should be given to the farmer’s
obligation to inform workers of their legal rights andemployment conditions. The support mechanism
could play a major role in providing workers withinformation on legal rights.

38. Written particulars of employment must be provided when employment commences. Written employment contracts
are not compulsory though and there is therefore no statutory deadline for the concluding of a written contract (seeAppendix III for more detailed legal information).
39

Chapter 3

ALP Program: feedback from farmers,
workers, and other stakeholders

EXTERNAL ASSESSMENT
Universal Leaf South Africa

External Assessment

CU asked farmers, family members, and external
workers what had changed on their farms since thestart of the ALP Program. As most farmers, family
members and workers were not familiar with theterm ALP, this question focused on the effect of ULSA
services in relation to the working environment on
the farm. Eleven farmers (28%) reported that they
were better informed about national legislationand how to apply the regulations to their farms.
In addition, 11 farmers (28%) reported that thesituation at their farm had improved (two mentioned
workers were now wearing PPE, two mentioned
work hours were recorded more accurately, two
mentioned workers now had employment contracts,
one mentioned accommodation was upgraded, four
mentioned the standards in general on the farm
had been raised). Nine farmers (23%) reported that
nothing had changed on their farms. One farmer
reported that workers left after having received
training.
Nine family members (33%) reported that the
support of ULSA had helped with compliance tothe regulations of the law. One (4%) mentioned
it had improved safety awareness and one (4%)
commented that ULSA’s support had only helped

to improve the situation of the workers and not of
the farmers. Seven family members (26%) reported
nothing had improved.
Only 27 workers (20%) provided feedback to CU.
Fifteen mentioned that their knowledge on theirlegal rights had improved and four mentioned thatthey now knew why they should wear PPE. However,nine workers reported that nothing had improved.
The Agronomy Managers mainly focused oncommunication with the farmers, while the ALP
Coordinator focused on training of workers in
Limpopo reion. However, ULSA had no structured
process to channel feedback from farmers or
workers to the ALP team.
Twenty-seven farmers (68%) declared that they
had provided informal feedback to ULSA. Of thisgroup, the majority (15 farmers) declared that thisfeedback concerned technical topics on tobacco
production. Eight said they had provided feedback
on ALP-related topics, for example, that they were
not happy with CU’s unannounced visits or that
their workers did not want to wear PPE, or the stateof their worker accommodation.

41

Appendices

EXTERNAL ASSESSMENT
Universal Leaf South Africa

Appendix I – Universal Leaf South Africa’s Action Plan

UNIVERSAL LEAF SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) Ltd

Agricultural Labor Practices Action Plan
2017

ULSA CU ACTION PLAN

Project: ALP Action plans 2017 / 18

Date: 31/07/2017

Version: 1

Reference: J Malan

Page: 22 of 24

1. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION
Universal Leaf South Africa Pty Limited (ULSA) contracts with Dark Air Cured Tobacco farmers in South
Africa, producing in three provinces: Limpopo in the north, and the East and Western Cape in the south. In
general, tobacco farms in South Africa are large-scale commercial operations with many workers living on
the farms. Although there are approximately 190 tobacco farmers in South Africa, employing a total of 8,000- 10,000 workers, ULSA focuses on sourcing Dark Air Cured (DAC) tobacco only.
For the 2016/2017 season, ULSA directly contracted 85 farms comprising 42 in Limpopo and 43 in the Cape
areas. These contracts are shared amongst 75 farmers with some of them owning more than one contracted
farm and therefore having more than one contract.
The total DAC crop in South Africa is small at no more than 3,500 Tons. A significant volume of the DAC
production procured by ULSA is sold to PMI’s domestic tobacco product manufacturing operation.
During the Control Union assessment a great number of positive areas were identified wherein
No evidence was found at any of the farms of:• Forced labor;• Farmers disrespecting the right to freedom of association;• Chemical Protection equipment being in a bad condition;• Physical abuse of labor;• Unlawful employment of children;• Workers working longer than the legal daily limits;• Involuntary overtime;• Workers not being paid regularly.
On most farms:• Working equipment was stored securely and safely;• Resources were in place in case of emergency;• Farmers were available to discuss potential problems with workers.
However Control Union has identified labor practice risks and problem areas on ULSA contracted farms,
some of which had been noted by ULSA as areas for improvement prior to the assessment. The main areas
requiring focus and improvement include:• Income and work hours with illegal deductions and payments below minimum wage on some farms;• Not all farm workers’ accommodation meeting minimum standards;
44

ULSA CU ACTION PLAN

Project: ALP Action plans 2017 / 18

Date: 31/07/2017

Version: 1

Reference: J Malan

Page: 22 of 24• Awareness on safe use of Crop Protection agents (CPA s) and insufficient availability and use of
Personal Protection Equipment (PPEs);• Awareness on avoiding Green Tobacco Sickness (GTS) and use of PPE’s;• Availability of sanitary facilities and drinking water near the workplace;• Absence of written contracts for labor on some farms;• Non documented foreign workers on some farms;• Gaps in the general understanding of the ALP program amongst ULSA representatives, farmers andworkers.
ULSA has developed a set of initiatives aimed at addressing the issues identified for improvement in theControl Union assessment and at demonstrating and confirming its commitment to implementation of the
ALP program.

2. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ALP PROGRAM
2.1 COMMITMENT TO THE ALP PROGRAM
Findings
CU found that although ULSA had a clearly defined ALP policy, the staff mainly referred to the ALP Coderequirements in terms of the importance of meeting customer demands for continuity of the tobacco
business. The ALP Program was primarily perceived as a compliance program.

Action plan
Going forward, ULSA will focus its ALP program on inculcating behavioral change at farm level and ensure that
the ALP policies reflect such. The program aims at ensuring that the farmers understand their role and takeownership to implement ALP at their farms. To achieve this, ULSA through the human resources department
and management, will review the key performance indicators and job description of the agronomy operations
implementation team to clearly define the ALP performance goals. This is expected to be completed by
October 2017.
ULSA will continue to categorize all contracted growers according to individual production yield and quality,
as well as including key ALP related issues into the process. All contracted farmers will receive an ALP rating
on formalized employment agreement that comply with all applicable laws and ALP principles (including
corporate permits), recycling of CPA containers, compliant worker accommodation, first aid trained employees
and PPE availability and use. Farmer categories will be linked to benefits such as crop advances and premium
prices for tobacco purchases. Category A to C farmers will receive a pre-sale advance on their estimated crop
size while Category D farmers will not qualify for this benefit. The purpose of the program is to motivate
farmers rather than penalizing them, encouraging them to achieve the intended behavioral changes at farm
45

ULSA CU ACTION PLAN

Project: ALP Action plans 2017 / 18

Date: 31/07/2017

Version: 1

Reference: J Malan

Page: 22 of 24

level. Farmers with recurring noncompliance and failure to take corrective actions are more likely not to becontracted the next season. ULSA started implementing this aspect of the action plan in June 2017 and thetarget is to complete the implementation to 100% of all the contracted farms for the 2017/2018 season.

Expected outcomesa. This will result in deeper farmer understanding and ownership of the program on their farms and promoting
behavioral change and improved practice in the targeted areas at farm level consistent with ALP principles.

2.2 STRATEGY AND OBJECTIVES
Findings
Although, at the time of the assessment, ULSA focused on a number of ALP related topics, ULSA had no formal
process in place for setting the strategy and objectives for ALP implementation. A basic risk assessment of theissues identified had been conducted and several initiatives were being implemented. The risk assessment
was based solely on the experience of the ULSA management in the tobacco industry, but not on informationcollected systematically from the farms.

Action plan
ULSA is in the process of reviewing the ALP strategy, to have the program aligned with the organizational
objectives. This is expected to be completed by the end of October 2017. During the time of the assessment,
farm profile data were collected using paper and some were from the trialed electronic data collection system(MobiLeaf). Going forward, all farm profiles data will be collected using Mobileaf. With the improved internal
focus on ALP and the farmers understanding of the ALP program, future risk assessments will be based ondata gathered from farm monitoring and other surveys. The risk assessment will be conducted annually
henceforth in the month of September.
This will allow the organization to have a risk assessment that is based on the identified issues and support
the action plans to focus on the actual root causes.

Expected outcomesa. A clearer strategy for the ALP Program at ULSA based on the understanding of the ALP principles and on theindividual farm risk assessment, with a well-developed action plan to promote and monitor improvement.

2.3 INTERNAL CAPACITY
Findings
During the CU assessment, it was identified that the ALP responsibilities are not included in the job
descriptions of the field team and that the element used by ULSA to evaluate individual performance of the46

ULSA CU ACTION PLAN

Project: ALP Action plans 2017 / 18

Date: 31/07/2017

Version: 1

Reference: J Malan

Page: 22 of 24

management team were not linked to the targets mentioned in the job descriptions. It was also reported that
the ULSA field staff were not well versed on the description of hazardous tasks, CPA re-entry periods and therequirements for provision of clean drinking and washing water.
Furthermore, the application of suckercide for topping was not considered hazardous. CU also found theinternal communication process, with regards to the ALP program to be mainly informal using email or phone.
Also, that weekly conference calls and quarterly meeting were held, but meeting minutes were not recorded
for this meetings.

Action plan
ULSA takes this findings from CU as an opportunity to reflect on the current status quo and a way of
bettering the ways of working with the limited staff capacity. With the support of the HR Department,
the job descriptions of all the ALP Implementation Committee will be aligned to include the relevant ALP
responsibilities and ensure that individual performance monitoring is aligned with their responsibilities. On
the training and knowledge of the ALP, ULSA will implement intervention plans in the 2017/18 crop year thatwill focus on improving the knowledge of the country team through:• ALP coordinator will attend the ULT Regional ALP Training Programs and participate in the regional
ULT STP committee.
• ALP coordinator to liaise with other ULT ALP coordinators in the region to leverage on their experienceand benefit from cross market visits.
• ALP coordinator to use the gained knowledge to formalize training for the ULSA ALP team to improvetheir overall knowledge on the ALP program.
• Align the ALP training material to coincide with the crop calendar to ensure that training is focused on
issues that are more prevalent during that period.
To improve on internal communication and ensure that there’s traceability of all the ALP discussions andother STP topics, ULSA will develop a formal meetings guideline for all the STP meetings by Oct of 2017.
Furthermore, a STP meeting will be formalized to occur on a monthly basis, at which the ALP program will
also be discussed.

Expected outcomesa. ALP responsibility performance of the ALP team will be measureable.
b. ULSA ALP team will have full understanding of the full ALP program and will be in a confident position to
implement the ALP program with the farmers.
c. A formalized and structured meetings process that will allow for in time reporting and addressing of ALP
issues and an improved record keeping system.

47

ULSA CU ACTION PLAN

Project: ALP Action plans 2017 / 18

Date: 31/07/2017

Version: 1

Reference: J Malan

Page: 22 of 24

2.4 COMMUNICATION OF THE ALP CODE REQUIREMENTS TO FARMERS
Findings
CU acknowledged that ULSA informed farmers on ALP topics mainly during regular farm visits, as well as byemail, phone or organized group meetings and that the field team paid regular visits to the farms, of which
each farmer reported being visited at least on a monthly basis. These visits focused mainly on agronomyrelated topics to ensure a good tobacco crop. Moreover, ULSA provided its farmers with information anddocuments via email, including information regarding the ALP Program and ALP Principles. However, many
farmers mentioned that they had not read the materials. ULSA produced communication materials regarding
Green Tobacco Sickness (GTS) and the support mechanism, and distributed these among their farmer base.
Most farmers, when asked about specific ALP topics, had a limited awareness. Farmers mentioned being
informed about ALP-related topics in group meetings, and several referred to the ULSA emails and regular
visits by the ULSA field team. Both knowledge transfer between the farmers and workers on ALP and theimpact of worker trainings by the ALP Coordinator seem to have been limited, even though several workers
reported they had been trained by the ALP Coordinator.

Action PlanULSA will review and update its ALP training materials before the end of December 2017. Prevalent ALP
topics and updates will be discussed during all ULSA and farmer meetings, including detailed discussion on thecontents of the ALP documents with each farmer before handing it to them to sign. The MobiLeaf electronic
data collection tool will be used as validation to confirm document handouts. The frequency of trainingof farm workers on ALP topics will be increased, monitored and documented on MobiLeaf on a monthly
basis. The training and communication will be aligned to farmer categorization, assessing performanceagainst benchmarks and the associated benefits. ALP training material will be aligned to coincide with thecrop calendar to ensure that training is focused on issues that are more prevalent during that period. Bestpractices from other ULT markets in the region will be evaluated continuously to establish their application
on ULSA farms.
ULSA has developed a working relationship with the Department of Labour (DoL), who conducts routine
unannounced compliance visits to all the farms, including ULSA contracted farms. ULSA will maintain regularcontact with the DoL to ensure that all ALP issues what may occur on the contracted farms and picked up by
the DoL are reported to ULSA and resolved in good time.

Expected outcomesa. Improved farmers and farmworkers knowledge and understanding of the ALP program.
b. Farmers will understand that they need to take ownership and lead the implementation of the ALP programand manage it at farm level.
c. ULSA advising and supporting the implementation of ALP at farm level.

48

ULSA CU ACTION PLAN

Project: ALP Action plans 2017 / 18

Date: 31/07/2017

Version: 1

Reference: J Malan

Page: 22 of 24

2.5 INTERNAL MONITORING: DATA COLLECTION AND ACCURACY
Findings:
At the time of the CU assessment, ULSA had just started recording farmers’ performance on several agronomy
topics and seven ALP topics to assess whether farmers were meeting the requirements in relation to ULSA’s
farm categorization. No additional qualitative information was added. For all farms the categorization data
was available, however, the categorization records did not fully match with the situation on these farms. ULSA
stated to CU that the plan is to integrate data collection for farm categorization into Mobileaf as an additional
survey. Limited actual analysis was done to investigate the root causes of identified situations not meetingthe standard. Several items were missing, incomplete and/or inaccurate. MobiLeaf was not accessible due toproblems with the data warehouse. These challenges resulted in ULSA not having a reliable data source withwhich to fully understand all risks and issues and to implement effective initiatives to address them. ULSA
stored farm data either in Excel or MobiLeaf.

Action PlanULSA is in the process of improving the systematic farm monitoring process, with specific focus on improving
the accuracy of data that is being collected to ensure 100% of farm profile data accuracy. ULSA will also be
addressing the current challenges that are being experienced with Mobileaf and is working on having it fully
operational and adopted to the commercial farms setup by end of Aug 2017. To achieve this ULSA will:• Assign the task of fine-tuning the Mobileaf system to one of the agronomy managers who has abackground of information management systems and who will henceforth be the MBL coordinator forthe organisation.
• Implement a process to monitor MobiLeaf user’s operational efficiency individually.
• Implement a periodic process to validate data accuracy using the droidSurvey data application 39 at thefarms.
• Use the data captured in the central database to conduct regular analysis that will identify and address
blind spots.
• Identify ALP code standards not meeting targets and have them discussed during STP ALP committee
meetings.
• All farms to receive a minimum of 5 visits during a crop year as part of monitoring.

Expected outcomesa. To have all farm profile data accurate by end August 2017.
b. Seasonal updates completed by end of January every year.
39. droidSURVEY is a business application compatible with Android devices to assist with the collection of field online/
offline data and its synchronisation with an internal database49

ULSA CU ACTION PLAN

Project: ALP Action plans 2017 / 18

Date: 31/07/2017

Version: 1

Reference: J Malan

Page: 22 of 24

2.6 PROMPT ACTIONS
Findings:
At the time of the assessment, ULSA was not yet using MobiLeaf for recording Prompt Actions, and hence
provided Prompt Actions (PA) in an Excel format. Prompt Actions were not discussed or communicated withthe farmers. Furthermore there was no list provided with recommended actions in case other types of Prompt
Actions were identified. Compared to the range of situations not meeting the standard as identified during
the CU farm visits, the number of reported Prompt Actions by ULSA was low. No clear escalation process was
described regarding the reporting of Prompt Actions, although the field team did mention that they directly
informed their superior (the Managing Director) in case they identified a Prompt Action. Furthermore, noclear overview was available of the follow-up actions required in case of a reported Prompt Action.

Action Plan:ULSA acknowledges the finding of CU on the collection of prompt action data and realizes that it is an areaof improvement that requires a systematic change to the process and an investment in the knowledge of the
field team. To do that, ULSA will be focusing on the following:• Working with the regional ULT team to have a standardized Prompt action guideline that will be
addressing the process for opening and closing PA’s, follow up, escalation and repeated offenders
which is expected to be completed by end of Sep 2017.
• Ensure that all the field team members are trained on the PA guideline by the ALP coordinator by theend of Oct 2017.
• Ensure that prompt actions are discussed with farmers and action plans are agreed on.
• All prompt actions will be pre-loaded and collected through the MobiLeaf system from end of Jun
2017.
• Prompt actions will be reviewed periodically for realignment of priorities during the season. 100% ofPrompt Actions to receive a follow up visit and to check for re-occurrence.

Expected outcomesa. Improved knowledge of PA’s by the agronomy field team as a result of training and a clearly defined process.
b. A reduction in the PA’s raised due to actions plans being implemented at farm level to address the root cause.

50

ULSA CU ACTION PLAN

Project: ALP Action plans 2017 / 18

Date: 31/07/2017

Version: 1

Reference: J Malan

Page: 22 of 24

2.7 IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR INDIVIDUAL FARMS
Findings:
CU observed that ULSA did not agree with farmers on improvement plans for their farms. Although ULSA
had drafted STP improvement plans, including ALP topics, for the previous crop season (2016), these had notbeen updated; there had been no tracking of the progress, nor had there been any follow-up to these plans.

Action Plan:ULSA had previously conducted a risk assessment for its farms and from which the pertinent issues wereidentified and initiatives were developed. The identified areas of improvement were Income and Work
Hours (I&WH) and the Safe Work Environment (SWE). ULSA field staff conducted a farm by farm ALP review
during April 2017 to review current ALP conditions per individual farm. ULSA will draft individual farmimprovement action plans by the end of October 2017. To improve on farmworkers accommodation, ULSA
conducted a pilot project between Jan – May 2017, which was a success (details will be discussed under the
SWE action plans). The learning from this pilot will be used to define an action plan to have all farm worker
accommodation meeting the minimum standards on all ULSA contracted farms. ULSA will review on a regularbasis all the STP initiatives conducted and determine needs for outstanding farms where necessary on anannual basis. Important aspects of compliance with the ALP Program are linked to the farmer categorization.
ULSA will use MobiLeaf as an efficient data capturing and reporting tool and to update and synchronise withdata warehouse daily.

Expected outcomesa. By drafting individual farm action plans, the implementation of the total ULSA action plan will be more
efficient and accurate to reduce risks and improve ALP conditions on all farms.

3. ADDRESSING SYSTEMIC AND/OR WIDESPREAD ISSUES
3.1 ALP CODE PRINCIPLE 1: Child Labor
Findings
For the farms visited no evidence was found of children below 15 years being employed. However, CU didfind one Cape farm employing two 17 year old children who were involved in hazardous activities and who
also worked full shifts several days a week.

Action Plan
In terms of section 43 of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act (BCEA) Act 75, the minimum working age
is 15 years old. It is also required that the child must be above the minimum school leaving age in terms of51

ULSA CU ACTION PLAN

Project: ALP Action plans 2017 / 18

Date: 31/07/2017

Version: 1

Reference: J Malan

Page: 22 of 24

any law, if it is 15 years or older. South African law sets the minimum school leaving age at 15. The BCEA
position is re-stated in section 25 of Farm Workers Sectoral Determination 13 which establishes conditionsof employment for employees in the farm worker sector. It further states that no person may employ a child(being persons 18 or younger) in employment that is “inappropriate for a person of that age, or that places
at risk the child’s wellbeing, education, physical or mental health, or spiritual, moral or social development”.
ULSA is committed to its policy of working to eliminate child labour in the tobacco leaf supply chain, andthis includes the protection of children’s rights on farms supplying tobacco to ULSA. ULSA will therefore
ensure that all farmers and farm workers are fully aware of the legal minimum working age training on theprinciple of child labour and the type of work suitable for under 18 years old, focusing mainly on hazardous
tasks. In increasing awareness on hazardous tasks, ULSA will also be distributing the list of hazardous tasks
to all their farmers. The farmers’ contracts will be amended to include the clause that the employer will not
hire any labour without verifying the ID, passport, birth certificate and/or asylum documents to validate
age by June of 2018. This will be monitored by field staff during their routine visits and unannounced visits
henceforth. The Department of Labour, whom ULSA is working closely with on the support mechanism, also
visit farms unannounced on a regular basis as the custodians of the BCEA. As part of the monthly feedbackon the support mechanism, ULSA will obtain feedback from the DoL where they have identified any violations
from their farms.

Expected outcomesa. Adherence to the ALP program and the country law with regards to the employment of children in all the farms
that ULSA is sourcing tobacco from.
b. At farms where children below the ages of 18 years are employed, they are not involved in any hazardous
activities.

3.2 ALP CODE PRINCIPLE 2: INCOME AND WORK HOURS
Findings
a. At over 40% of the farms, workers were paid below the legal minimum wage. Salaries were either
calculated hourly, daily, weekly or on a piece rate.
b. At all farms workers were paid regularly in accordance with the law, except for one farm, where workers
received part of their salary at the end of the season, contrary to the law.
c. At most farms workers were not provided with all the legal benefits to which they were entitled bylaw, such as leave and sick leave. The main reason for the lack of legal benefits was that many workers
had not formalized their employment status and so were not registered with the required government
institutions.
d. Some farmers were making deductions from their workers’ salaries that did not comply with the law.

52

ULSA CU ACTION PLAN

Project: ALP Action plans 2017 / 18

Date: 31/07/2017

Version: 1

Reference: J Malan

Page: 22 of 24

Action PlanULSA takes this findings very seriously. The BCEA states that all employers must display a copy of the summaryof the Act in the workplace.In addressing the issues identified by CU during the assessment, ULSA will ensurethat at all its contracted farmers, all workers, including foreign workers, are trained on the ALP code ofincome & work hours, increase visibility and promote the use of the support mechanism, and in partnershipwith the DoL, train them on the BCEA between July 2017 & June 2018. During the training period, ULSA will
also ensure that the summary of the BCEA summary and details of the support mechanism are displayed at all
farms that tobacco is sourced and will distribute copies at farms that don’t have the summary.
To administer compliance, the field staff will monitor and validate availability of contracts, wages, payment
schedule, deductions and provision of legal benefits as part of the standard monitoring process throughMobileaf. The system will prompt the validation at every visit that is conducted at a farm. Over and above themonitoring, privately discuss with the workers, especially the vulnerable groups like the migrant workers tovalidate if they are receiving all the legal requirements. As part of the categorization process, farmers thatare not adhering to the requirements and not showing improvements are unlikely to be contracted with ULSA
going forward. This message gets reiterated during the quarterly meetings (study groups) that ULSA has withthe farmers.

Expected outcomesa. All farmers and farm workers are aware of and are being paid at least the minimum wage by theend of 2017.
b. By having the appropriate farmer contracts and paying their workers regularly, all farmers will beadhering to legislation and compliant with the ULSA ALP plan.
c. All farmers provide their workers with the necessary legal benefits and workers are fully informed

about their rights.
d. There are no farmers who make any illegal deductions from workers.

3.3 ALP CODE PRINCIPLE 3: FAIR TREATMENT
Findings:
a. Certain workers reported that they had been verbally harassed by the farmer by being shouted at.
b. Communication on the support mechanism did not indicate to farmers or workers as to what to expect
after reporting an issue.
c. On some farms workers sometimes fought with each other. Although these fights happened outside
work time they did occur on the farm premises as the workers lived there.

53

ULSA CU ACTION PLAN

Project: ALP Action plans 2017 / 18

Date: 31/07/2017

Version: 1

Reference: J Malan

Page: 22 of 24

Action plan:
Although the findings of the CU assessment highlight sporadic cases where workers have been treatedunfairly, ULSA takes this very seriously. Prior to the CU assessment, ULSA had partnered with the DoL increating a support mechanism in the Lephalale area of Limpopo. This was meant to embed and take advantageof the system already put in place by the government and align it with the ALP program requirements.
During the CU assessment, shortcomings on the communication of the support mechanism were identifed,
as it does not elaborate on the process following any report made under the mechanism. This is particularly
relevant for migrant workers who may be concerned about their legal status if they use the support
mechanism. To address this issues ULSA has reviewed the procedure of the support mechanism and updated
the training and communication materials. The issue of formalising the employment of foreign workers is
explained in detail under the section on compliance with the law, which will in turn address the use of the
support mechanism by the migrant workers. As part of maximizing the effectiveness of the SM during thepilot phase, ULSA will be focusing on the following areas in the 2017/18 crop season.
• Together with DoL re-training farmers and farm workers on the functionality of the SM and increaseawareness through pamphlets and business cards.
• Ensure that both parties understand fully the benefits of using the system where necessary and what
to expect after reporting a grievance.
• Include in the training of the Fair Treatment principle the ALP code topics that are not covered by the
SM and give the workers guidance in the other options available.
• Have at least a monthly meeting with DoL personnel to review the cases that have been reported anddiscuss improvements of the SM system.
• Get monthly feedback on grievance reports in writing from the DoL.
• ULSA to lead the way to assist in the building of a trust relationship between the DoL and contracted
farmers.
• ULSA will as part of the due diligence process, conduct test calls to the SM every 6 months and review
the follow up process during the monthly feedback sessions.

Expected outcomesa. An efficient SM that covers all the farmers and farm workers on ULSA contracted farms.
b. All farmers and farm workers are well trained and feel comfortable using the SM.
c. Cases of unfair treatment being raised through the support mechanism.

54

ULSA CU ACTION PLAN

Project: ALP Action plans 2017 / 18

Date: 31/07/2017

Version: 1

Reference: J Malan

Page: 22 of 24

3.4 ALP CODE PRINCIPLE 4: FORCED LABOR
Findings
No evidence was found of workers unable to leave their employment, employed against their will, of
contracted prison labor or of any obligation to pay a financial deposit. On one farm, for security reasons
workers lived inside a fenced compound that was locked at night. Although the gate was open during the
day the workers were unable to leave the farm premises through the gate at night because they did not havethe key. At another farm, workers declared that they had requested the farmer to hold their documents for
safekeeping so they would not lose them. This was seen as a risk as the workers depended on the farmer to
get their ID’s back.

Action Plan
Security is a high risk in most areas of South Africa and more especially in the farming community, which arein the remote and isolated areas and often without adequate infrastructure. The practice of having enclosed
premises, therefore becomes practical and necessary in this instances. ULSA recognizes the importance ofachieving an appropriate balance so as avoid the unintentional potential of restricting the free movementof workers. As part of the continuous annual training on ALP program and specifically the forced labour
principle to the farmers and farm workers, there will be increased awareness of the situation that might
constitute forced labour. This will include the retention of copies of form of identification, instead of the
keeping the original documents, the use of labour brokers (with the help of DoL) and payments (as discussed
under I&WH principle).

Expected outcomesa. Farmers aware and able to apply their mind on situation that might constitute to FL.
b. Workers aware of their rights and protected from victimization through FL.

3.5 ALP CODE PRINCIPLE 5: SAFE WORK ENVIRONMENT
Findings:
a. On most farms workers responsible for handling green tobacco were not trained on the avoidance ofGreen Tobacco Sickness (GTS). Consequently, the number of farms using protective clothing (PPE) was
limited.
b. On some farms pregnant women handling CPA and without appropriate PPEc. CPA applicators were not properly trained on the safe use and handling of CPA and were not using fullset of PPE when doing so.
d. Re-entry periods were not respected after the application of CPA

55

ULSA CU ACTION PLAN

Project: ALP Action plans 2017 / 18

Date: 31/07/2017

Version: 1

Reference: J Malan

Page: 22 of 24

e. CPAs were not stored properly and in some cases empty CPA containers were not disposed of properly.
f. Workers’ accommodation was found to be inadequate
g. Workers were not always provided with clean drinking water near the work place. Furthermore,washing water and soap was not available near the work place and workers were not provided withsanitary facilities close to where they worked.
h. Working at heights without proper protective equipment.

Action Plan:
On prevention and avoidance of GTS
Working with green tobacco is a hazardous task which may result in GTS, and therefore requires the useof personal protective equipment (PPE). To prevent GTS workers need to follow best practice avoiding thehandling of green leaf tobacco in the field when it is wet and protecting themselves with the correct clothing
when handling tobacco in the field which includes long sleeve overalls and protective gloves covering all bodyparts below the neck. To address the findings of CU on GTS, ULSA will improve the farmer and farm worker
knowledge on the avoidance and prevention of GTS through training programs per farm, and using training
materials available from other ULT operations in the region. The training on GTS and its prevention must bealigned with the crop calendar to begin prior to topping, harvesting and curing. Continuous monitoring andrefresher training where necessary must take place during each farm visit.
ULSA registered the use of PPE as a non-funded STP and recently, following the sourcing of suitable GTS PPE,
issued farmers with the appropriate PPE where no PPE was available. The training sessions will include thedemonstration of the PPE to enable workers to understand the use of it. Farmers to be encouraged to take aleading role in ensuring that necessary precautions against GTS are taken on their farms
ULSA understands that pregnant women may often not disclose their pregnancy status due to cultural beliefs
or try to hide it in fear of losing their employment as a result of their condition. Farmers will be trained toprovide training to their workers and create awareness of the risks for pregnant women and nursing mothersof carrying out hazardous tasks such as topping tobacco or dealing with CPAs, and of opportunities for lightwork instead, without fear of discrimination. Farmers will also be encouraged to explain alternative placing
methods that will be used in the event that an employee will fall pregnant and need to be employed in nonhazardous conditions.

On safe use and handling of CPA, re-entry periods and storage of CPA
Working with CPA is seen as a hazardous work, and therefore requires appropriate training on best practices
and the use of personal protective equipment (PPE). Workers working with CPA need to be protected by thecorrect clothing which includes a chemical resistant overall, protective gloves, eye protection and a mask.
Farmer and farm worker knowledge on the avoidance and prevention of CPA contamination needs to improvethrough appropriate training programs. Continuous monitoring and refresher training where necessary musttake place during each farm visit.

56

ULSA CU ACTION PLAN

Project: ALP Action plans 2017 / 18

Date: 31/07/2017

Version: 1

Reference: J Malan

Page: 22 of 24

ULSA registered the use of PPE as a non-funded STP to ensure commitment towards addressing the issue.
Recently, following the sourcing of suitable CPA PPE, farmers were issued with appropriate PPE where no
PPE was available on farms. Refer to Addendum 1.
39% of the farmers in Limpopo sent workers to a CPA training session during 2016. Another training
session, in local languages, was completed on 15 August 2017 when a certified supplier completed a CPA
handling training course which included more than 75% of the farms in Limpopo. All workers that attended
the training will be issued with certificates. The training sessions included the demonstration of the PPE toenable workers to understand their application. Farmers are encouraged to take a leading role in ensuring
the necessary precautions exist for CPA application on their farms. The same training will follow in the Capegrowing areas and the target is to cover 100% of farms by September 2018.
ULSA training and training materials to be provided to improve the knowledge of farmers and farm workers
about the dangers of re-entering CPA treated fields. Farmers to understand the risks of and to prohibit
workers from entering a recently treated field. All treated fields must be clearly marked with appropriate
signage which includes the use of a red flag or specific warning signs. Farm specific signs must be known to all
workers on the farm to enable them to identify the recently treated fields. Farmers are encouraged to take aleading role in ensuring that necessary precautions against treated fields are adhered to. Farmers and farmmanagers must take responsibility and implement a warning system by October 2017.
ULSA will train the farmers to rinse empty CPA containers three times in succession with one quarter of thecontainer volume clean water (this is triple rinsing) and rinse water must be decanted into the spray bowser.
Triple rinsed empty containers may not be stored for longer than three months at any given site unless thatsite is registered as a waste collection and storage site. It is therefore imperative that farmers dispose of
their empty triple rinsed containers at least once every three months. ULSA provides a disposal site at thebuying station in Limpopo and farmers from time to time dump empty containers at the site which is recorded
per farmer. ULSA has also initiated a process by which a registered recycling service provider collects empty
CPA containers and other plastic and hazardous materials directly from farms. This process has commenced
from August 2017 and farmers are issued with recycling certificates by the service provider. A similar system
will be adopted in the Western Cape growing area by the end of 2018. In the Eastern Cape, CPA vendors
collect empty containers as part of the farmer GlobalGAP certification process. The process of recycling has
been added to the farmer categorization where they will lose points if they are not recycling.

On farmworkers’ accommodation
The South African legislation prescribes minimum farm worker accommodation standards where
accommodation is being charged, however the law is silent on cases where accommodation is offered withoutcharges. In the absence of a local guide, ULSA will follow the ALP program which states that accommodation,
where provided, shall be clean, safe and meet the basic needs of the workers and conforms to the country’slaws, where applicable. ULSA has embarked on an initiative to improve the farm workers living standards
starting with a pilot project conducted on two farms in Limpopo between Jan - May 2017. The objective of
the pilot was to determine a cost effective farm worker accommodation that meets the minimum standards
and is affordable for the farmer. The learning from the pilot will be used to assist with the determination of
the feasibility of such a project for the entire farmer base.
57

ULSA CU ACTION PLAN

Project: ALP Action plans 2017 / 18

Date: 31/07/2017

Version: 1

Reference: J Malan

Page: 22 of 24

An individual farm accommodation assessment was completed during May to August 2017 to establish the full
requirement for new houses, houses to be renovated and sanitary services to be improved. ULSA will compile
a project plan and calculate the feasibility of pre-financing farmers to improve worker living standards. The
project is planned to run over 3 years and action and development plans will be drafted for each farm withspecific goals set. This will also ease the monitoring and validation. Farms with serious noncompliance will befirst with the completion date set for the end of 2019. Compliant farm worker accommodation is included in
the farmer categorization program. Refer to Addendum 2.

On clean drinking, washing water and sanitary facilities
Clean drinking and washing water and sanitary services should always be available near the place of work andin accommodation on all ULSA contracted farms as guided by legislation and promoted by the ALP program.
ULSA reiterated to the farmers of their obligation to supply workers with clean drinking water at theworkplace. Availability of toilets and sanitary facilities to workers at the workplace is a legal requirement. If
water points are not available near the work area, water should be made available in clean containers which
can be transported to the workplace. Sanitary facilities must be within walking distance from the workplace.
At a farm group meeting in Limpopo during June 2017, farmers were shown a mobile option which includes a
toilet, washing area and reservoir with clean water, all fitted on a trailer that can be moved around with thelabor. All contracted farms have been mandated to supply the necessary facilities to workers with effect fromthe commencement of the 2018 crop season in August 2017. This will be monitored by the field team during
the regular farm visits and captured in the Mobileaf system.

On general safety measures
In 2016 ULSA through a service provider Emcare Emergency Care Specialist, trained one first aid
representative for every 25 workers per farm on 77% of the contracted farms and the remainder of thefarms were trained in January of 2017. Refresher trainings will be conducted every second year henceforth.
Furthermore, ULSA took advantage of the funding provided through the AgriSeta to train farm worker
specialists on Safe use of CPA, Pest control, Tractor safety and general farm safety through a service provider
called Skills for Africa. Although attendance was disappointing from the contracted farms at 47%, ULSA willcontinue on the same initiative on an annual basis to improve on this aspect. ULSA will also issue all the farms
with suitable and enough harnesses for workers who hang tobacco at height in curing barns by Nov 2017 andoffer them training on the safe use of harnesses.

Expected outcomesa. On all farms, farm workers working with fresh tobacco will be aware of the dangers of GTS and will as a matterof routine take the precautions to avoid it by the end of 2017. Farmers will take a leading role to ensure theuse of PPE on their farms and appropriate leaf handling best practice.
b. Farmers will take a leading role to ensure the safe use of CPA and wearing of PPE on their farms, with farmers
and labour aware of the dangers of CPA contamination.
c. Farmers will warn workers against recent CPA usage on fields by displaying warning signs which are
well known to workers.
58

ULSA CU ACTION PLAN

Project: ALP Action plans 2017 / 18

Date: 31/07/2017

Version: 1

Reference: J Malan

Page: 22 of 24

d. All farmers appropriately dispose of their empty CPA containers and other hazardous materials.
e. All farmer will supply their workers with safe accommodation at a minimum standard required by the
ULSA ALP program.
f. Workers will have access to safe drinking water and sanitary facilities at the workplace and close to
their accommodation on all farms. Washing water will be available at all times.
g. Pregnant women feel comfortable to declare their status. No pregnant or breastfeeding women are
involved in any hazardous work and are transferred to safer working environments.
h. Farmers understand and acknowledge the importance of having a safe working environment on thefarm. All contracted farms have personnel trained in workplace safety which benefits all workers by
ensuring a safe work area.

3.6 ALP CODE PRINCIPLE 7: COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW
Findings:
a. Workers were generally aware of the basic conditions of employment but not fully informed about
their legal rights, even though farmers were generally aware of the legal rights of workers.
b. Farmers didn’t always have written contracts with their workers as required by law.
c. Foreign workers working at some of the farms without proper documentation

Action Plan:
All contracted growers must inform and explain to all workers, including foreign workers, their legal rights
and include their terms and conditions of employment in a formalized document. All farms must display anofficial poster informing labor of their legal rights.
Increase farmer awareness on their obligation to inform all employed workers, including foreign labor,
about their legal rights. ULSA to supply farmers with an official document of terms and conditions indicating
employee legal rights. Farmers must ensure that these documents are clearly displayed within the work
areas. The workers legal rights must be included in a formal agreement between the employer and employee.
ULSA will address this issue at farm level by the end of September 2017.
All farm workers, including foreign workers, working on ULSA contracted farms must have written agreementswith their employers, clearly indicating all working conditions and benefits. Workers must receive copies ofthe signed document. ULSA farmers employ approx. 2882 workers who can be classified as follow:• Local fulltime permanently employed – 52% of the total workforce.
• Local Seasonal temporary employed – 15% of the total workforce. If employed longer than 3 months,
employment becomes permanent.
• Foreign Full time employed – 21% of the total workforce. Must be employed on the basis of an asylum
document or corporate visa. Where a corporate visa is used, the farmer must be in possession of acorporate permit.
59

ULSA CU ACTION PLAN

Project: ALP Action plans 2017 / 18

Date: 31/07/2017

Version: 1

Reference: J Malan

Page: 22 of 24• Foreign seasonal temporary employed – 12% of the total workforce. If employed longer than 3 months,
employment becomes permanent on a work visa basis.
• Unspecified duration (Piece job) – normally employed on a day to day basis to complete a specificpiece of work, and paid on an hourly basis. Productivity encouraged by paying on achievement withina period of time, with the lowest achiever paid minimum wage. Increased achievement results in ahigher wage. No contract required but farmers are encouraged to sign a document mitigating their onfarm risks while these workers are present.
All the above categories must at least be paid at minimum wage. All employees employed for longer than 3months qualify for all benefits.
ULSA to increase the farmer and farm worker, including foreign labor, knowledge on employment conditions
and more specifically ALP Code to formalize employment. Validate worker contracts and inclusion of
all benefits. During August 2017 ULSA supplied all farmers with a legal template document as a basis forformalizing employment contracts with local or foreign worker categories. These documents have been
compiled according to legislative requirements. ULSA will endeavor to have all employment formalized on all
the contracted farms by March 31st 2018.
Foreign workers seeking employment in South Africa need to be in possession of legal documents that would
allow them to work. There are 2 basic options that enable farmers to employ foreign workers:• Asylum status – foreigners can apply for asylum on an individual basis as refugees when already within
South Africa after which they can obtain a section 22 asylum document that will allow them to work
locally. When they are allowed asylum, a section 24 document will allow them to work in South Africa
for 2 years, with the option to renew.
• Corporate work visas - are issued to foreigners where it has been proven beyond reasonable doubtthat South African citizens and permanent residents with the relevant qualifications or skills andexperience are not available for appointment. A farmer must go through an application process as
the employer and provide proof why the foreign workers are needed. On completion of the process,the farmer will be issued a corporate permit which will allow him/her to issue corporate work visas
to a specific number of foreign workers as a group. CP’s are the best option because of the groupapplication and allow workers to work legally for 3 years, after which re-application needs to go
through the whole process again. Farmers employing foreign workers without the necessary permit,
are seen as illegal employers and subject to heavy financial penalties. Workers working on farms withillegal documentation, are deported to their countries of origin.
The application process for corporate permits is lengthy because of inefficiencies in the system. Although
the Department of Labor, with which ULSA has built a good relationship recently, is part of the application
process, most of the application procedures follow a very complicated system through a visa application
center.
There is an indication from the SA government that a renewed work permit system might apply for
Zimbabwean workers in SA from 2018 but nothing confirmed yet.
60

ULSA CU ACTION PLAN

Project: ALP Action plans 2017 / 18

Date: 31/07/2017

Version: 1

Reference: J Malan

Page: 22 of 24

Expected outcomes• 100% of farm workers are informed of their legal rights and understand their terms and conditions of
employment.
• All farmers provide their workers with the necessary employment contracts to formalize employment.
That will ensure that the farmer and worker are contractually in an agreement which clearly stipulates
responsibilities and benefits.
• Where all labour are legally employed, farmers will be compliant with and better placed to effectively
achieve ALP implementation according to legislation.

4 CONCLUDING REMARKSULSA management and employees are fully committed to the design and implementation of the ALP Action
plan described here. The objective is to embed and maintain ALP as part of the business culture and as normal
behavior. The very good level of communication with the ULSA contracted farmers will ease implementation.
ULSA strives to maintain good relations with its contracted farmers and expects a positive response
from farmers on being fully ALP compliant. Contracted farmers understand that they need to lead theimplementation on their farms as normal behavior.
ULSA and its farmer’s ALP objectives are to protect all farm workers on these contracted farms against
discrimination, abuse, unfair and unsafe working conditions, and to ensure that they are well trained tocomplete their work productively in accordance with ALP principles.

61

ULSA CU ACTION PLAN

Project: ALP Action plans 2017 / 18

Date: 31/07/2017

Version: 1

Reference: J Malan

Page: 22 of 24

ADDENDUM 1
Example PPE62

ULSA CU ACTION PLAN

Project: ALP Action plans 2017 / 18

Date: 31/07/2017

Version: 1

Reference: J Malan

Page: 22 of 24

ADDENDUM 2
Pilot worker accommodation

63

External Assessment

Appendix II – Scope and methodology
Assessment teamOpening meeting

The team responsible for conducting this assessment
consisted of two local South African auditors, one
coordinator from Argentina and one coordinatorfrom the Netherlands. The auditors conducted farmassessments and interviewed the field team. The
two coordinators interviewed ULSA management.
The local auditors were trained by Verité and CU
at the end of 2016.40 This qualification process
consisted of the following stages:

On February 6, 2017, CU started the assessmentwith a meeting at the ULSA head office inJohannesburg attended by ULSA’s management(Managing Director, ALP Coordinator, Financial
Manager,
Operations
Manager,
Agronomy
Manager Limpopo, Agronomy Manager Cape), andrepresentatives from Universal Region and PMI
Region. CU presented the objectives and approachof the assessment, while ULSA provided a brief
overview of the market and company background.

• Selection of candidates by CU;• Webinars organized by CU to verify suitability ofcandidates;• Completion of online training provided by Verité;• Full week classroom training conducted by Verité
with CU; and• Shadowing during farm visits by the coordinator.
Desk review
Prior to this assessment, ULSA was requested tosend documentation to the CU team to give thema better idea about the market characteristics andthe management systems. ULSA provided the legal
information that was relevant to the ALP Code (seeAppendix III for more detailed legal information).
This was important to ensure a thorough preparation
for the assessment.

Methodology for ALP implementation systemreview
The methodology used for the evaluation of
ULSA’s implementation of the ALP Program isbased on the widely used PDCA 41 cycle. This
cycle is a management method for the continuous
improvement of processes and products. CU spent
two days (February 6 and 7, 2017) at ULSA’s head
office to interview management staff, analyze
documentation, and evaluate their systems to better
understand how the implementation of the ALP
Program was organized. In total, CU interviewed
eight management personnel (including the field
personnel, and one representatives of PMI Region.
Additionally, CU interviewed three stakeholders:the Department of Labor of Lephalale, Skills for
Africa and Emcare. All interviews were conductedindividually, so that interviewees felt comfortable
and able to speak freely and raise any issues.

40. Of the two coordinators: one had been trained in 2013 and the other in 2014.
41. Plan, Do, Check, Act
64

External Assessment

Scope and farm sampling
DAC tobacco production in South Africa is concentrated in three regions: Limpopo, East Cape and West
Cape (see map below).

Tobacco production in South Africa

At the time of the assessment, ULSA sourced
tobacco from all three regions. For the purpose ofthis assessment, and based on the characteristicsof the areas, CU divided the DAC tobacco growing
regions into two homogenous groups: Limpopo and
the Cape (East and West Cape combined).

In both regions, many farmers had additional land
to grow other crops and/or raise livestock. Limpopo

In Limpopo the 70% of farmers grew 10-50 hectaresof tobacco contracted by ULSA, 18% grew lessthan 10 hectare, 9% grew 50-100 hectares, and 3%
grew more than 100 hectares. In the Cape 93% of

ULSA contracted a total of 34 DAC farmers in
Limpopo and 43 DAC farmers in the Cape. To
constitute a meaningful sample, CU needed to visit
at least 20 farms in Limpopo and 20 in the Cape
(East and West), which was calculated by the squareroot of the total number of farms per homogenous

the farmers grew less than 10 hectares of tobacco
contracted by ULSA, and 7% grew 10-25 hectares.

farmers often had hunting lodges and large areas ofland to keep game. In East Cape citrus was the main
crop, and in West Cape many farmers also raised
ostriches.

65

External Assessment

region with a minimum sample of 20. In total, CU visited 20 farms in Limpopo and 19 farms in the Cape ,which were either sampled randomly or based on the following criteria:• Geographic spread;• One farm visit was targeted to verify the accommodation initiative (see 1.6).
Over a period of three weeks, CU visited 4-6 farms a day, with a reporting day after each field day. The
graphs below provide demographic information about the farm selection.

Farmers previously contracted
by ULSA, Limpopo (T=20)

Farm size Limpopo (T=20)(ha contracted by ULSA)

5%
15%

10%
25%

90%
55%

0-10

Yes

10<-50No

50<-100>100

Farmers previously contracted
by ULSA, Cape (T=20)

Farm size Cape (T=20)(ha contracted by ULSA)

15%

20%

85%

80%
0-10

Yes

10<-50No

42. Note that one farm in the Cape had two contracts with ULSA, hence T=20.
66

External Assessment

Stage of tobacco production Limpopo (T=20)

20
16
14

15
10
5

9

8
4

1
0
Growing

Topping

Harvesting

CuringClassifying

Delivery of
tobaccoStage of tobacco production Cape (T=20)

20
14

15
10
5

3

3

2

1

0
Growing

ToppingLand ownership Limpopo (T=20)

Harvesting

CuringClassifying

Land ownership Cape (T=20)

5%

15%
5%

80%

95%

Owned

Owned

Sharecropping

Owned and leased
Sharecropping67

External Assessment

Most farmers owned the land used for tobacco farming. On one Limpopo farm (5%) and three Cape farms(15%) there was a sharecropping agreement in place. For the Limpopo farm this was a 50/50 agreement
between two brothers. On one Cape farm it was an 80/20 agreement between the landowner and farmer,
with the landowner having the contract with ULSA and receiving 80% of the profit. Two Cape farms also
had 50/50 agreements between the landowner and farmer.
Type of farm Limpopo (T=20)

Type of farm Cape (T=19)

5%
21%

21%

20%

16%
75%

42%

Farm with family members andlocal and migrant workers

Farm with family members andlocal and migrant workers

Farm with local and migrant
workers (no family memebrs)

Farm with local and migrant
workers (no family memebrs)

Farm with only local workers(no family members)

Farm with only local workers(no family members)
Farm with family members andlocal workers

Number of workers on Limpopo
farms (T=20)*

Number of workers on Capefarm (T=19)*

5%
24%

5%

33%
30%

65%

38%

0-25
25-50

0-25

50-100

25-50

>100

50-100*Based on ULSA farm data
68

External Assessment

Thanks to the openness and collaboration of ULSA,
CU managed to conduct all visits unannounced. This
meant that the farmers had not been informed about
the visit and its objectives prior to CU’s arrival. ULSA
did inform farmers at the start of the assessment
period that a visit could take place within a certain
period but said nothing in the days prior to the visits.
CU informed ULSA about the names of the selected
farmers only on the day of the visit. The reason
for this was that CU wanted to obtain a realistic
picture of the farm practices, which was most likely
to be seen when arriving unannounced. At 11 of theselected farms, the farmers were not present when
the CU assessment team arrived; these farms were
replaced by other farms.

farmers, family members and workers. Sources
could also include documentation and visualobservation of the farm area, field, storage facility,
and curing barns. This methodology was also
used to investigate the underlying factors that
increase the risk of not meeting the standard. In
addition to information triangulation CU also used
the “Five Whys” methodology, a commonly usedtechnique to obtain an understanding of problems,
to investigate the reasons behind certain issues.
Before every interview CU explained the objectiveof the assessment and assured interviewees that all
information would be kept completely anonymous.
Next to assessing labor practices, CU also verified
the impact of ULSA’s management systems on thefarms, to assess how these were perceived by the

Methodology for ALP farm practices review

field team, farmers, family members, and workers.

The methodology used during the farm visits was
based on triangulation of information. Auditors
were instructed to seek at least two, preferably
three, sources of information. They used theirfindings to draw conclusions about whether farm
practices were meeting the standard of the ALP
Code. These sources could be interviews with

Limpopo (T=90)
3%

People interviewed
Where possible, interviews were conductedindividually and without the farmer, to avoid undue
bias. For the same reason, all interviews with farmers
were conducted without the field team. In addition
to 40 farmers, 169 people were interviewed by CU.

Cape (T=79)
1%

3%

13%
19%

44%
38%
78%

Family members

Family members

External workers (South Africa)

External workers (South Africa)

External workers (Zimbabwe)

External workers (Zimbabwe)

External workers (Mozambique)
External workers (Botswana)69

External Assessment

Demographic information on the 169 family members and external workers:

Gender interviewees (T=169)

Age of interviewees (T=169)
2%

46%
54%

98%

Female

15*17

Male

Adults (>=18)

Duration of employment of external workers interviewed (137 people in total).

Duration of employment Limpopo(External workers only: T=73)

Duration of employment Cape
(External workers only: T= 64)

5%

6%
13%

20%

55%
17%
75%

9%

1-3 months

Less than 1 month

3-6 months

1-3 months

6-9 months

3-6 months

9-12 months

6-9 months

Permanent

9-12 months
Permanent70External Assessment

Closing meeting
On March 22, 2017, a closing meeting took place
at ULSA’s head office in Johannesburg with ULSA’s
management (ALP Coordinator, Financial Manager,
Operations Manager, Agronomy Manager Limpopo,
Agronomy Manager Cape), one representativeof Universal Region and one of PMI Region, andthe Verité consultant for Africa. ULSA’s Managing
Director and additional representatives from PMI
Region Leaf and PMI OC participated in the closing
meeting by video conference. CU presented theinitial findings and ULSA requested clarificationof certain items. A constructive discussion took
place on several topics. Overall, CU’s findings
were considered a useful base for taking action to
improve the implementation of the ALP Program.
Reporting procedure
During the assessment, auditors reported after eachfield day to the coordinator. This person monitored
the auditors’ findings, and provided feedback
whenever necessary. The coordinator compiled all
findings and combined these with the findings fromthe management assessment. Public release of CU’s
assessment report demonstrates PMI’s commitment
to transparency, which is an important componentof the ALP Program. CU authored the final report,
which was evaluated by Verité. PMI reviewed thereport to ensure consistency of the presentation ofCU’s findings worldwide. Finally, ULSA reviewed thereport to verify that all the information was correct,
and to finalize their action plan that was based on
this report.

71

External Assessment

Appendix III – Legal information
Universal Leaf South Africa provided the information
below to CU so it could be reviewed to ensure it was
clear and complete before the assessment.

Age (or ages) limit for compulsory schooling
1.4

PRINCIPLE 1 – CHILD LABOR
Minimum age for employment (in tobacco)
1.1

In terms of section 43 of the BCEA theminimum working age is 15 to be employed. It
also requires that the child must be above theminimum school leaving age in terms of any
law, if it is 15 or older. South African law sets
the minimum school leaving age at 15 and isdiscussed in more detail in a separate answer.

Hazardous work (and laws on hazardous work
related restrictions specific to children)
1.5

One exception with regard to employing
children under the age of 15 is theiremployment in advertising, artistic andcultural activities. In order to employ children
in such roles, a permit is required from the
Minister of Labour as well as the consent
from the parents or guardian of such children.

“To provide for the health and safety of
persons at work and for the health andsafety of persons in connection with the useof plant and machinery; the protection of
persons other than persons at work against
hazards to health and safety arising out of orin connection with the activities of persons atwork...”
1.6

Requirements applying to farmers’ own children orother family members such as nieces and nephews
helping on the farm
1.3

There are no specific references to this in
any legislation. However should the childbe earning any remuneration or be under
supervision of another employee, owner or
employer, the child will be regarded as a childworker with all the rights and responsibilities
as any other child worker / employee, as theregulations defines a “child worker” as any
child who (i) is employed by or works for an
employer and who receives or is entitled toreceive any remuneration; or (ii) who works
under the direction or supervision of an
employer or any other person.

Hazardous work is defined by local statute.
The relevant statute in this regard is the
OHSA. The preamble to the OHSA is worded
as follows;

The BCEA position is re-stated in section 25 ofSectoral Determination 13 which establishes
conditions of employment for employees in
the farm worker sector.
1.2

Section 3 (1) of the South African Schools Act,
1996, requires every parent to cause every
learner for whom he or she is responsible toattend a school until the last school day of theyear in which the learner reaches the age of
15 or the ninth grade, whichever is the first.

In section 1, dealing with definitions, ‘hazard’
and “safe” are defined as follows:
1.6.1 “safe” means free from any hazard;
1.6.2 “hazard” means a source of or exposure
to danger.

1.7

The Oxford English Dictionary Volume 1, Fifth
Edition, at page 599, gives the word “danger”
the following definition:“danger means liability or exposure to harmor injury; risk, peril.”

1.8

The term “hazardous activity/work” istherefore broadly defined under the OHSA
as any work or workplace activity thatcompromises the safety of employees by
exposing such employees to danger in theform of harm or injury or a threat of such
harm or injury.
72

External Assessment

1.9

All agricultural activities that compromise
the safety of employees by exposing such
employees to danger in the form of harm or
injury, or the risk or threat of such harm or
injury will be considered hazardous work forthe purposes of the OHSA.

1.10 In terms of section 43 of the Basic Conditionsof Employment Act 75 no person may employ
a child (being persons 18 or younger) in
employment that is “inappropriate for a
person of that age, or that places at risk thechild’s wellbeing, education, physical ormental health, or spiritual, moral or social
development”.
1.11 Any person who employs a child, mustin respect of such work undertake a risk
assessment process, which must include atleast the identification and analyzing of therisks and hazards to which a child may be
exposed and preparing and implementing botha documented plan of safe work procedures
to remove, mitigate, reduce or control therisks and hazards that have been identified
and a monitoring plan.
1.12 No employer may require a child worker toundertake work in respect of which a person
would be required to wear respiratory
equipment, or to work in an elevatedposition of more than 2 meters above theground (unless the work is performed under
supervision of a competent adult employee/
employer and fall protection measures areprovided). A child worker may not work at
a height of more than 5m above the floor or
ground.

1.15 Local law prohibits children from being
required or permitted to perform work thatis remunerated based on the quantity of work
done (“piece work) or the completion of set
tasks (“task work”). However, such workers
can receive a commission on completion of atask if they are paid a minimum wage.
1.16 A child cannot work in any work in the
manufacture or packaging of tobacco products
or any other work in which there is exposure
to tobacco dust. The prohibition against
working in the manufacture or packing of
tobacco products would not include general
tobacco leaf growing farming activities. For
such activities, however, one would need toensure that the child is not exposed to tobacco
dust. The child will be able to perform farming
activities where there is no risk of exposure
to tobacco dust.
1.17 Children may not operate tractors, winches,
forklift vehicles, front-end loaders, earth
moving equipment or similar heavyequipment.
Tasks that workers children under 18 are specificallyprohibited from participating in by law
1.18 Section 10 of Schedule 2 of the Regulations
on hazardous work by children in South Africa
provides that an employer may not require or
permit a child to work in any of the following:
1.18.1

The manufacture or packing of
tobacco products or any other workin which there is exposure to tobacco
dust;

1.18.2Work involving an exposure, or
potential exposure, to blood-borneor air-borne pathogens; and1.18.3Work involving exposure to ahazardous substance, to lead,asbestos, silica, coal or otherhazardous dusts or to pressurised
gases.

1.13 An employer may not make any deduction foraccommodation in respect of a farm worker
who is under 18 years of age.
1.14 In addition, there are restrictions onchildren working in cold environments, hotenvironments, noisy environments, lifting
certain weights and operating power tools.

73External Assessment

1.19 Furthermore section 11 of the Regulations on
hazardous work by children in South Africa
categorises the following as the Worst formsof child labour, and accordingly the following
types of work are prohibited (listing whattypes of work possibly applicable to thetobacco or agriculture sector):
1.19.1work in which there is a reasonably
foreseeable risk of exposure toblood-borne and airborne pathogens;1.19.2any work in an environment in which
the actual dry-bulb temperature is
below minus 18°C; and1.19.3

hard manual labour for a period of
longer than 15 minutes in any hourin an environment in which the timeweighted average WBGT index,(as defined in the Environmental
Regulations for Workplaces, madein terms of the Occupational Healthand Safety Act, 1993) determinedover a period of one hour, is greaterthan 36.

1 March 2016 to
28 February 2017

Other restrictions or requirements on theemployment of workers under 18 years (e.g. limit on
work hours, work permits, etc.)
1.20 An employer must maintain for three years, arecord of the name, date of birth and addressof every farm worker under the age of 18
years employed by them.
1.21 An employer may not require or permit a childfarm worker who is 15 years of age or older,but younger than 18, to:1.21.1work after 18h00 and before 06h00
the following day;

1.21.2work more than 35 hours in any
week; and1.21.3

to work with agro-chemicals.

1.22 The minimum wage for farm workers under
the age of 18 but older than 15 and who workfor 35 hours per week or less is calculated asfollows:

1 March 2017 to
28 February 2018

1 March 2018 to
28 February 2019

Hourly Rate
(ZAR)

14. 25Hourly Rate
(ZAR)

Previous years
minimum wage +CPI* + 1%

Hourly Rate
(ZAR)

Previous years
minimum wage +CPI* + 1%

Daily Rate
(ZAR)

128. 26 (Foran employee
who works 9hours per day)

Daily Rate
(ZAR)

Previous years
minimum wage +CPI* + 1%

Daily Rate
(ZAR)

Previous years
minimum wage +CPI* + 1%

Weekly Rate
(ZAR)

641. 32

Weekly Rate
(ZAR)

Previous years
minimum wage +CPI* + 1%

Weekly Rate
(ZAR)

Previous years
minimum wage +CPI* + 1%

Monthly
Rate (ZAR)

2778. 83

Monthly
Rate (ZAR)

Previous years
minimum wage +CPI* + 1%

Monthly Rate
(ZAR)

Previous years
minimum wage +CPI* + 1%*The CPI to be used is the available CPI excluding owners’ equivalent rent as released by Statistics
South Africa six weeks prior to the increment date.
74

External Assessment

PRINCIPLE 2 – INCOME AND WORK
HOURS
Laws on regular and overtime hours (e.g. maximum
work hours)

Overtime
1.28 An employer may not permit a farm worker towork more than 15 hours of overtime a week
and 12 hours (including overtime) on any day.

Ordinary Hours

Compressed Working Week

1.23 An employer may not require or permit a farmworker to work more than 45 hours in any
week and nine hours in any day if the farmworker works for five days or fewer in a week,or eight hours in any day if the farm worker
works on more than five days in a week.

1.29 An agreement in writing may require or permit
a farm worker to work up to twelve hours

Extension of Ordinary Hours
1.24 An employer may enter into a writtenagreement in terms of which the farm worker’s
ordinary hours of work are extended by not
more than five hours a week for a period of
not more than four months in any continuous
period of twelve months and are reduced by
the same number of hours during a period of
the same duration in the same twelve month
period. Such an agreement may not extend
the farm worker’s ordinary hours of work to
more than ten hours on any day.
1.25 During any period of extended or reduced
ordinary hours of work as above, the employer
must pay the farm worker the wage the farmworker would have received for the farmworker’s normal ordinary hours of work.
1.26 During any period of extended or reduced
ordinary hours of work, as above, theemployer must pay the farm worker the wage
the farm worker would have received for thefarm worker’s normal ordinary hours of work.
1.27 If a farm worker’s employment terminates
for any reason at time when the farm worker
has worked a great number of extended
ordinary hours than reduced ordinary hours,
the employer must pay the worker for theextended ordinary hours worked at a specified
overtime rate.

in a day (including meal intervals) without
receiving overtime pay, provided that suchagreement may not require or permit a farmworker to work more than 45 ordinary hours
of work in any week, more than ten hours ofovertime in any week or on more than fivedays in any week.
Night Work
1.30 “Night work” refers to work performed after
20h00 and before 04h00 the next day. An
employer may only require or permit a farmworker to perform night work if so agreed andif (i) the employer pays the farm worker anallowance of at least 10% of the farm worker’s
ordinary daily wage; and (ii) transportation
is available between the farm worker’s
place of residence and the workplace at thecommencement and conclusion of the farmworker’s shift.
Requirements that employers must meet to request
overtime from workers
1.31 The employer and the workers are required toenter into a written agreement in respect ofovertime.
Laws on regular and overtime wages (e.g. minimum
wages, minimum wages agreed with unions) Minimum wages
1.32 According to the Sectoral Determination 13:
Farm Workers Sector, the minimum wage forfarm workers with effect from 1 March 2016is as follows:75

External Assessment

1.32.1

Hourly: ZAR 14.25

1.32.2

Daily: ZAR 128.26 (For an employee who works 9 hours per day)

1.32.3

Weekly: ZAR 641.32

1.32.4Monthly: ZAR 2778.83

1.33 Subsequent to 28 February 2017, the minimum wage calculation as set out in the table under question
1 applies.
1.34 An agreement entered into with unions may only increase the wages of farm workers and accordingly,
may not decrease the above minimum wage established for farm workers.
Overtime wages
1.35 Yes, an employer must pay a farm worker at least one and a half times the farm worker’s wage forovertime worked.
1.36 Despite the above, however, an agreement may provide for an employer to pay a farm worker notless than the farm worker’s ordinary wage for overtime worked and grant the farm worker at least
30 minutes’ time off on full pay for every hour of overtime worked, or grant a farm worker at least 90
minutes’ paid time off for each hour of overtime worked.
1.37 Any work done on Sunday’s is considered to be overtime, payment for which must be calculated asfollows:

Time worked on a Sunday

Payment

One hour or less

Double the wage for one hour

More than one hour but not morethan two hours
More than two hours but not morethan five hours
More than five hours

Double the ordinary wage for the time worked

The ordinary daily wage
The greater of double the wage payable in respect of time worked(excluding overtime) or double the ordinary daily wage.

1.38 For work done on public holidays, an employer must pay:
1.38.1

where the public holiday falls on a day which a farm worker would ordinarily work:

1.38.2at least double the daily wage; or

1.38.3

if it is greater, at least the wage which the farm worker would ordinarily have received forwork on that day plus the amount earned by the employee for the time worked on that day;

1.38.4

where the public holiday is on a day which the farm worker would not ordinarily work:

1.38.5the farm worker’s daily wage; plus
76

External Assessment

1.38.6the farm worker’s hourly wage foreach hour worked on the public
holiday.

Laws on basic entitlements to be paid to workers(e.g. social security, health care, holidays, otherleave entitlements etc.) Unemployment Insurance Fund (UIF)
1.39 Each worker who works for more than 24hours per month is required to contributeto the UIF. However, it is the responsibilityof the employer to register the business andmake the necessary deductions from the
remuneration of the workers to the UIF.
Rest Period
1.40 An employer must grant a farm worker a daily
rest period of at least twelve consecutive
hours between ending work and starting
work the next day and a weekly rest periodof at least thirty-six consecutive hours
which, unless otherwise agreed, must include
a Sunday. An agreement in writing may
however provide for a rest period of at least
sixty consecutive hours every second week.
1.41 The daily rest period may be reduced to 10
hours for a farm worker by written agreement
where the farm worker lives where theworkplace is situated and whose meal intervallasts for at least three hours.
Leave
Annual Leave
1.42 A farm worker is entitled to (i) three weeks
leave on full pay in respect of each twelve
months of employment (“annual leave cycle”);or (ii) by agreement, at least one day of annual
leave on full pay for every 17 days on which
the farm worker worked or was entitled to bepaid; or (iii) by agreement, one hour of annual

leave on full pay for every 17 hours on which
the farm worker worked or was entitled to be
paid.
Sick Leave
1.43 A “sick leave cycle” is a period of 36 months of
employment with the same employer. A farmworker is entitled to paid sick leave equal to
the number of days the farm worker would
normally work during a period of six weeks ina sick leave cycle.
1.44 Despite the above, during the first six monthsof work, the farm worker is entitled to one
day’s sick leave for every 26 days worked.
The number of days of paid sick leave granted
in a sick leave cycle may be reduced by the
number of days paid sick leave which the farmworker took in the first six months.
Family Responsibility Leave
1.45 Family responsibility leave applies only to afarm worker who has been employed by an
employer for longer than four months andwho works on at least four days a week forthat employer. Such a farm worker is entitledto 3 days paid family responsibility leave
during each 12 months of employment.
Maternity Leave
1.46 A farm worker is entitled to at least four
consecutive month’s (unpaid) maternity leave.
Night Work
1.47 In the event of night work, the employer must
enable a farm worker to undergo a medical
examination at the request of the farm worker,
for the account of the employer concerning
the hazards of night work before or within areasonable period that the farm worker starts
and at appropriate intervals while the farmworker continues to perform such work.

77External Assessment

Wage and hours law specific to piece rate workers,
seasonal workers, and migrant workers

general requirements and not specific to farmworkers.

1.48 The BCEA and Sectoral determination 13
does not specifically regulate piece rate workfor the farming sector. Nevertheless, theBCEA applies to all employees and Sectoral
determination 13 applies to the employmentof farm workers in all farming activities in
the Republic of South Africa. Therefore the1.53 An employer may not employ a foreign
national within the territory of the Republicof South Africa prior to such foreign national
producing an applicable and valid work
permit, issued in terms section 38 of the
Immigration Act.

position set out above in respect of hours
is the same for piece rate workers, seasonal
workers, and migrant workers.

1.54 Any employer who contravenes thisprohibition shall be guilty of an offence andliable on conviction to a fine or imprisonment
as contemplated in section 49(3) of the
Immigration Act.

1.49 In addition to the above position, section 2 ofSectoral Determination 13 provides that an
employee who works less than 45 ordinary
hours of work per week must be paid at least
the hourly rate as set out in the Table atquestion 1. Therefore regardless of the typeof employee it is, even in respect of piece rate
workers, farm workers remuneration may not
be less than the minimum wage.
Laws on payment of wages relevant to the frequencyof payment in agriculture, for example, laws on
whether end-of-season one-time payments are
permissible

1.55 An employer may not require or permit aforeign national:
1.55.1

to perform any work which suchforeign national is not authorised toperform in terms of his or her work
permit; or

1.55.2

to engage in work contrary to theterms of their work permit.

1.50 Wages may be paid daily, weekly, fortnightly
or monthly. Local laws do not permit paymentof wages at the end of a season.

1.56 Any employer who contravenes thisprohibition shall be guilty of an offence andliable on conviction to a fine or imprisonment
as contemplated in section 49(6) of the
Immigration Act.

Laws on in-kind payment

Other specific rules applicable to migrant workers

1.51 Local laws do not permit payment in kind. It
is a requirement that an employer pay a farm

1.57 An employee who is employed without a valid
work permit is entitled to enforce any claimthat the employee may have in terms of any
statute or employment relationship against
his or her employer or any person who isliable in terms of the law.

worker in South African currency.
Legal requirements for migrant workers to ensure
they are legally permitted to work
1.52 Certain provisions of the Employment
Services Act 4 of 2014 may be applicable toa migrant worker who is a foreign national,
defined as an individual who is not a South
African citizen or does not have a permanent
residence permit issued in terms of the
Immigration Act. Please note that these are

1.58 The options for work permit/visa are as
follows: intra-company transfer visas; criticalskills work visas (highly skilled migrant visas);
general work visas; corporate visas; andbusiness visas. In applying for most visas/permits, the following may be problematicfor an employer wants to bring in a foreigner

78

External Assessmentthat does not have a valid permit yet: In termsof the Immigration Act, a local sponsor (asprospective employer) for a work visa/permit
is required to show that no local person iscapable of filling the applicant’s position
and the prohibition on the employment offoreign nationals where their employment
would compromise a South African citizen’s
opportunities for employment, employment
conditions, economic development or social
sustainability. It has become quite difficult inrecent times for foreigners to obtain a work
permit/visa.

punishment and sexual harassment are
addressed separately (due to the nature of thelaws that regulate them). Lastly, we address
the fourth question (i.e. the laws on resources
for victimized workers).
Laws defining and prohibiting discrimination
3.2

The Constitution prohibits discriminationand provides that no person (including theState) may unfairly discriminate directly
or indirectly against anyone on one ormore grounds, including race, gender, sex,
pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social
origin, colour, sexual orientation, age,disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture,
language and birth.

3.3

The EE Act provides a similar prohibition
againstunfairdiscriminationinanemployment context by prohibiting unfair
discrimination in any employment policy
or practice for the reasons stated above.
The EE Act also adds HIV as a listed ground.
These grounds are not a closed list, andunfair discrimination can also take place onan unlisted ground. For an unlisted ground toamount to unfair discrimination it must havethe capacity to impair the human dignity ofthe victim.

3.4

Furthermore section 6(4) of the EE Act
provides that a difference in terms andconditions of employment between employees
performing the same or substantially thesame work or work of equal value that isindirectly or directly based on any or more of
the grounds above is unfair discrimination.

PRINCIPLE 3 – FAIR TREATMENT
2. Applicable laws:
2.1

The Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998 (“theEE Act”);

2.2

Constitution of the Republic of South Africa,
1996 (“the Constitution”);

2.3

Code of Good Practice on the Handling of
Sexual Harassment (“the Code”); and2.4

The Occupational Health and Safety Act 85 of
1993.

3. Your answer:
3.1

Four questions have been posed underPrinciple 3 – Fair Treatment. There is someoverlap between the first three questions.
We address those three questions in aslightly different order, namely – Firstly, we
address the laws defining and prohibiting
discrimination and in doing so we give an
overview of an employee’s right to protection
from discrimination. Thereafter we address
the employer’s obligations in respect of
discrimination. Then we address the laws
defining and prohibiting verbal, psychological,
physical punishment, and sexual harassment
and abuse - verbal and psychological abuse
is grouped together, whereas physical

Employers’ obligations in respect of discrimination
3.5

Section 5 of the EE Act requires that an
employer take steps to promote equal
opportunity in the workplace by eliminating
unfair discrimination in any employment
policy or practice.

79

External Assessment

3.6

Furthermore in terms of section 60 of the
EE Act, should an employee contravene a
provision of the EE Act, an employer musttake all necessary steps to eliminate thecontravention. A failure to do so may resultin liability on the part of the employer as ifthat specific employer contravened the EE
Act itself. If an employer can prove that it did
all that was reasonably practicable to ensure
the employee would not act in contraventionof the EE Act, the employer will not be held
liable for the employee’s contravention of
the EE Act. This is relevant in the context ofsexual harassment for example.

Laws defining and prohibiting verbal, psychological,
physical punishment, and sexual harassment and
abuse
3.7

As stated above, we will firstly address verbal
and psychological harassment/discriminationand then move onto physical punishment,
sexual harassment and physical abuse
respectively.

Verbal and / or psychological harassment /discrimination
3.8

3.9

Under South African labour law, the conceptsof prohibited harassment and discrimination
are interwoven with each other, as section
6(3) of the EE Act provides that harassment
is a form of unfair discrimination and isprohibited.
Harassment is not defined in the EE Act but
is defined in the Promotion of Equality andPrevention of Unfair Discrimination Act as –“unwanted conduct which is persistent orserious and demeans, humiliates or createsa hostile or intimidating environment or is
calculated to induce submission by actual or
threatened adverse consequences and whichis related to —• sex, gender or sexual orientation; or• a persons’ membership or presumed
membership of a group identified by one
or more of the prohibited grounds or acharacteristic associated with such group;
3.10 An employee may not be subjected toverbal and / or psychological abuse by an
employer. Such abuse may render continued
employment intolerable and an employee may
in such circumstances assert a constructive
dismissal claim against the employer if that
employee has resigned to verbal and / orphysical abuse by the employer. Verbal and /or psychological harassment / abuse have notbeen statutorily defined.
3.11 In terms of the Constitution, every person has
the right to human dignity and to have theirdignity respected and protected. These rights
are very broad, and provide a prohibition
against verbal and / or psychological abuse.
Sexual harassment
3.12 Sexual harassment is defined in section 3 of
the Code as “unwanted conduct of a sexual
nature”. The unwanted nature of sexual
harassment distinguishes it from behaviour
that is welcome and mutual. Sexual attention
becomes sexual harassment if:
3.12.1the behaviour is persisted in, althougha single incident of harassment canconstitute sexual harassment; and /or

3.12.2the recipient has made it clearthat the behaviour is considered
offensive; and / or

3.12.3the perpetrator should have known
that the behaviour is regarded as
unacceptable.

3.13 Section 4 of the Code materially broadens thepossible forms sexual harassment can takeand includes - touching, verbal forms suchas whistling or comments, non-verbal forms
such as gestures, sexual favoritism as well80

External Assessment

or not the suspicion or belief is justified
or correct, that that employee has given
information to the Minister or to any otherperson charged with the administration of aprovision of this Act which in terms of thisAct he is required to give or which relates
to the terms, conditions or circumstancesof his employment or to those of any other
employee of his employer, or has compliedwith a lawful prohibition, requirement,
request or direction of an inspector, or has
given evidence before a court of law or theindustrial court, or has done anything which
he may or is required to do in terms of thisAct or has refused to do anything which heis prohibited from doing in terms of this Act.

as the favoring of an employee who accepts
sexual advances above an employee who doesnot. There is no closed list of forms of sexual
harassment but the common factor is that it isunwelcome conduct of a sexual nature.
3.14 The employer must create and maintain aworking environment in which the dignityof employees is respected and grievances
are adequately dealt with. An employer
may not ignore a sexual harassment
complaint or handle the complaint in an
insulting or degrading manner. An employer
must have sexual harassment policy
statements, adequate sexual harassment
policies, adequate grievance procedures,confidentiality measures and sick leavemeasures to effectively deal with sexual
harassment in the workplace.

(2) No employer shall unfairly dismiss
an employee, or reduce the rate of his
remuneration, or alter the terms or conditionsof his employment to terms or conditions
less favourable to him, or alter his position
relative to other employees employed bythat employer to his disadvantage, by reasonof the information that the employer has
obtained regarding the results contemplated
in section 12 (2) or by reason of a report madeto the employer in terms of section 25. ”

Physical abuse
3.15 Physical abuse is prohibited. In terms of theConstitution, every person has the right tofreedom and security of the person, which
includes the right to be free from all forms ofviolence from either public or private sources.
3.16 Protection against physical punishment (orthreat) and verbal abuse, is also provided
through the criminal and common laws
applicable in South Africa.
Laws on resource for victimized workers, if
applicable
3.17 In terms of the OHSA, victimization isforbidden. In particular, in terms of section
26:

3.18 Similar rights are granted to employees interms of the BCEA.

PRINCIPLE 4 – FORCED LABOR
4. Applicable laws:
4.1

The Children’s Act 38 of 2005

4.2

Constitution of the Republic of South Africa,
1996

4.3

The Basic Conditions of Employment Act 75
of 1997

4.4

The Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (“the
LRA”)

4.5

The Employment Services Act 4 of 2014

26. Victimization forbidden “ (1) No employer shall dismiss an employee,or reduce the rate of his remuneration, or alter
the terms or conditions of his employment
to terms or conditions less favourable tohim, or alter his position relative to other
employees employed by that employer tohis disadvantage, by reason of the fact, or
because he suspects or believes, whether

81

External Assessment

5. Your answer

5.5.2

a TES employee is assigned to a client
as a substitute for an employee who
is temporarily absent from work;

5.5.3

a TES employee is assigned to aclient to perform a category ofwork which is determined to be atemporary service by a collective
agreement concluded in a bargaining
council, a sectoral determination or a
notice published in the Government
Gazette by the Minister of Labour.

Legislation on forced labor
5.1

In terms of the Constitution, no one may besubjected to slavery, servitude or forced
labour.

5.2

This right is further entrenched in section 48
of the BCEA laws which state that no person
may for his or her own benefit or for the benefit
of someone else, cause, demand or impose
forced labour. A person who contravenes thisprohibition commits an offence in terms of
the BCEA

5.3

5.6

Section 141 of The Children’s Act 38 of 2005
states that no person may “use, procure oroffer a child for slavery or practices similar
to slavery, including but not limited to debt
bondage, servitude and serfdom, or forced orcompulsory labour or provision of services”.

Laws on prison labor
5.4

5.6.1

The first is that the employee
assigned to the client is “deemed” tobe the employee of the client, for the
purposes of the LRA and is employedon an indefinite basis by the client.

5.6.2

The second is that the client must
treat the deemed employee “on thewhole not less favourably” than an
ordinary employee who performs thesame or similar work, unless there isa justifiable reason for not doing so.

There are no laws that regulate the use ofprison labour. The prison labour system inSouth Africa was discontinued in the late1980s.

Legislation regulating the operation of labour
brokers and other third party recruiters (* Note –this is does not apply to employees earning in excessof the threshold prescribed by the Minister of Labourin terms of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act,
which is currently R205 433.33.)
5.5This provision is clearly aimed at discouraging
the use of the employees of a TES on along-term basis to avoid the costs of theemployment of permanent employees. The
sanction it imposes if a client makes useof a TES in circumstances that fall outside
the definition of a temporary service is aninteresting one and consists of two parts:

Section 198A regulates the operation oflabour brokers and other third party service
providers [i.e. temporary employment services- ‘a TES’]. It makes a distinction between what
can be regarded as the “acceptable” use of a
TES’s services and the “unacceptable” use of
its services. Acceptable use is described as
the provision of a “temporary service” and isdefined as the following, namely if:
5.5.1

a TES employee is assigned to aclient for a period of less than threemonths;5.7

The deemed employment provisions only
apply if the employee earns less than thethreshold prescribed by the Minister in termsof section 6(3) of the Basic Conditions of
Employment Act, 75 of 1997. At present, thisis ZAR 205 433.30 per annum.

5.8

There has been much debate whether theoperation of the deemed employment
provision results in the client being regarded
as the sole employer or whether the TES also
remains the employer. If the latter scenario
applies, the employee assigned to the client
will, in effect, have two employers, at least forthe purposes of the LRA.
82

External Assessment

5.9

The CCMA and bargaining councils have beencalled upon to consider this issue in at least
two arbitration proceedings. In both awards,
the client was regarded as the sole employer.
In Assign Services (Pty) Ltd v CCMA & others(Unreported JR 1230/15 8 September 2015)
the Labour Court was required to consider anapplication to review and set aside an award
where it was held that the client became thesole employer for the purposes of the LRA.
The Court found that the commissioner had
erred and came to the conclusion that theemployment relationship between the TES
and the assigned employee continued to exist
for the purposes of the LRA. It did so in thefollowing terms:“[12] So (and once again I
repeat) the only issue, on the stated case at
any rate, is whether the TES continues to be an
employer of the worker and, by reason of thisfact, is concurrently vested with the statutory
rights/obligations and powers/duties that the
Act generates. I see no reason why this should
not be so. There seems no reason, in principle
or practice, why the TES should be relieved of
its statutory rights and obligations towards
the worker because the client has acquireda parallel set of such rights and obligations.
The worker, in contracting with the TES,
became entitled to the statutory protections
that automatically resulted from his or her
engagement and there seem to be no public
policy considerations, such as pertain under
the LRA’s transfer of business provisions (s197), why he or she should be expected tosacrifice them on the fact that the TES has
found a placement with a client, especiallywhen (as is normally so) the designation of theclient is within the sole discretion of the TES.”

5.10 The practical effect of the judgment istherefore that both the TES/labour broker
and the client have the statutory rights
and obligations vis-à-vis the TES/labour
broker employees that are created by the

LRA. Both the client and the TES/labour
broker must accordingly comply with the
LRA’s fair dismissal obligations insofar asthese employees are concerned. From theperspective of a TES/labour broker, thedecision does seem to be of importance. It
appears that at least some TES’s want tobe seen as remaining the employer of theassigned employee. As the Court pointed out– “[6] … By these means it envisages that it
can continue to provide a justification for theservice that it offers the client and so warrant
the charge it levies in the conduct of its labour
broking business.” These TES’s will therefore
be happy with the outcome. From the client’s
perspective, it may well be asked whether thedecision has any meaningful consequencesin practice. In most cases, it is likely that an
employee will seek to exercise his or her LRA
rights against the client rather than a TES,
irrespective of whether there is one or there
are two employers.
Laws relating to limits or prohibitions on recruitment
fees and deposits workers may be required to pay
5.11 In terms of section 15 of the Employment
Services Act no person may be charged arecruiting fee unless it is permitted by the
Minister of Labour for specified categories of
employees.
5.12 The Minister has to date not given any
permission for the charging of a recruitment
fee in respect of farm workers.
5.13 Furthermore, in terms of section 16 of
the Employment Services Act, a private
employment agency must keep an electronic
or manual register reflecting - the workseekers registered with them; work seekers
that have been placed in employment; andparticulars of the employer where the workseeker was placed for a minimum period of
three years.

83External Assessment

PRINCIPLE 5 – SAFE WORK ENVIRONMENT
6. Applicable laws:
6.1

The Occupational Health and Safety Act (“theOHSA”);

Item 1

Wound cleaner / antiseptic (100ml)

Item 2

Swabs for cleaning wounds

6.2

General Safety Regulations in terms of OHSA;

Item 3

Cotton wool for padding (100g)

6.3

Sectoral Determination 13;

Item 4

Sterile gauze (minimum quantity 10)

6.4

Fertilizers, Farm Feeds, Agricultural Remedies
and Stock Remedies Act 36 of 1947; andItem 5

1 pair of forceps (for splinters)

Item 6
6.5

The South African National Standard for The
handling, storage and disposal of pesticides.

1 pair of scissors (minimum size
100mm)

Item 7

1 set of safety pins

Item 84 triangular bandages

Item 94 roller bandages (75mm x 5m)

Item 10

4 roller bandages (100mm x 5m)

Item 11

1 roll of elastic adhesive (25mm x 3m)

Item 12

1 Non-allergenic(25mm x 3m)

Item 13

1 Packet of adhesive dressing strips(minimum quantity 10 assorted sizes)

Item 14

4 First aid dressing (75mm x 100mm)

Item 15

4 First aid dressings (150mm x
200mm)

Item 162 Straight splints

Item 17

2 Pairs large and 2 pairs medium
disposable latex gloves

Item 18

2 CPR mouth pieces or similar devices

7. Your answer:
Requirements for provision of medical protection,such as availability of first aid kit, health & safety
training, etc.
7.1

7.2

In terms of the General Safety Regulations interms of the OHSA, employers must ensurethat prompt first aid treatment is available.
Where there are less than 5 employees, a firstaid box must be provided and be available andaccessible at or near the workplace. If there
are 10 to 50 employees at least one person
must be available to administer treatment
with a valid certificate. For every group of
50 to 100 employees at least one first personwith a valid certificate of competency in firstaid must be available. The employer musthave a prominent notice indicating where thefirst aid box is.
In terms of section 4 of the OHSA, a valid
certificate of competency in first aid can beissued by the SA Red Cross Society, the St
John’s Ambulance, the SA First Aid League
or a person or organization approved by thechief inspector for this purpose.

7.3

adhesive

strip

A first aid box must contain the items as per
the table below:

84External Assessment

equipment, irrespective of occasional
handling or intensive handling, andirrespective of the quantity of pesticideused.

Requirements to report accidents and injuries
7.4

In terms of section 24 of the OHSA thefollowing incidents must be reported andinvestigated - When a person dies; when aperson becomes unconscious; when a person
suffers the loss of a limb or part of a limb;
when a person is injured or becomes ill, or
is likely to die or suffer permanent physicaldefect; when a person unable to work for
14 days or longer because of a work related
incident; and when a ‘‘major incident’ occurs.

7.5

Furthermore the following occurrences mustalso be reported to the Provincial Director
if the health and safety of persons wereendangered by - dangerous spilled substances;or uncontrolled release of a substance underpressure; flying, falling, uncontrolled moving
object; and machinery that ran out of control.

Requirements for personal protective equipment
needed for using, handling, storing, or disposingof crop protection agents (CPA). This might varydepending on the CPA in question
7.6‘Crop protection agents’ include ‘pesticides’,which is the name that South African
legislation, rules and regulations refer to it as.

7.7

Section 7 of The South African National
Standard - The handling, storage and disposalof pesticides provides the following inrespect of personal protective clothing andequipment:“General
CAUTION: All protective garments shall bethoroughly washed with soap or detergent andwater at the end of each operation.
7.1.2 When a pesticide is being handled, theinstructions on the MSDS or the label(as applicable) shall be followed, taking
cognizance of all special precautions
concerning protective clothing and7.1.3 All operators shall clearly understandthat, even though protective clothing andequipment are used, great care shall still
be taken.
7.1.4 All protective clothing and equipment
shall be collected at the end of each day orat the end of each operation, as applicable.
No used protective clothing or equipment
shall be worn unless it has been thoroughly
washed or decontaminated.
7.1.5 An employer shall ensure that no worker
removes dirty or contaminated clothingor equipment from the premises. Dirty or
contaminated clothing or equipment to bedisposed of, or washed, or decontaminatedoutside the premises, shall be treated ashazardous chemical goods in accordancewith the relevant national regulations andstatutory provisions, and any provincial or
local regulatory requirements (see annex
A).
7.1.6 Two lockers, one marked “Protective
clothing” and the other one marked“Personal clothing”, shall be available toensure that clothing is kept separate.
7.1.7 Separate “clean” and “dirty” changerooms shall be available if pesticides areused to such an extent that they could
endanger the health of persons outside
the workplace.
7.2

Overalls

7.2.1 General
7.2.1.1 An overall provides good bodyprotection for an operator working
with pesticides. A loose-fitting two-85

External Assessment

piece garment (separate top andtrousers) provides flexibility in thatthe top and trousers can be worn
separately or together over normal
work clothes.
7.2.1.2

7.2.1.3

Cotton is one of the most effective,
durable and comfortable materials
for an overall. A cotton overall shallbe made of 100 % cotton with a mass
per area of 110 g/m2 and should
preferably have elasticized cuffs andno pockets. Alternatively, an overall
can be made of lightweight synthetic
material specifically developed forthe protection of operators working
with pesticides.
An overall shalla. be impervious
formulations,topesticided. the jacket hem of a two-piece
garment seals on the hips.
7.2.2.2

NOTE Lightweight synthetic materials havebeen developed specifically for the protectionof operators during crop-spraying operations.
7.3

Ponchos

7.3.1

A poncho is a one-piece garment witha hood made of impervious nonwoven
material. A poncho can be worn when
pesticide containers are being filled orwhen pesticides are being decantedand during the spraying of pesticides
classified as danger groups II, III and IV(colour code yellow, colour code blue andcolour code green respectively) in termsof SANS 10304-1. A poncho is open at
the sides to allow movement of air. This
type of garment has the specific benefitof providing additional protection
against leaking knapsack sprayers andcan be worn over work clothes or thetwo-piece cotton overalls.

7.3.2

A poncho shallbe light in colour so as topermit visual identification ofcontamination.

Overalls for crop-spraying operations

a. be impervious to pesticides,a. the hood closes round the gas
mask,

b. be durable,b. the sleeves close at the wrists
with elasticized cuffs,

d. be comfortable, andc. the trousers have elasticizedclosures round the ankles and thewaist, andpesticidee. be affordable.

e. be light in weight, andAn
overallforcrop-spraying
operations can be a two-piece
garment consisting of a jacket witha hood and trousers, or a one-piece
garment with a hood so designed
that

to

d. be comfortable and light inweight, andd. be comfortable,

7.2.2.1

a. be impervious
formulations,c. give splash and droplet protection,c. give splash and droplet protection,

7.2.2

crop-spraying

b. be durable,

b. be durable,f.

Anoverallfor
operations shallc. allow movement of air,e. be light in weight.

86External Assessment

7.4

Protective aprons

7.4.1

A protective apron gives additional
protection against spills and splashes
during the mixing and loading ofpesticides. A protective apron shall bemade of impervious nonwoven material.
It shall cover the front of the body fromthe top of the chest to below the knees
and shall also wrap round the sidesof the body and legs. A light colour,
which allows for visual identification ofcontamination, is preferable. Disposableaprons can be used as an alternative.

7.4.2

7.5.4

The face shield shall be of heightapproximately 150 mm and of width
approximately 300 mm in order to givefull face protection. The top of the faceshield shall be curved or shall be flexible
to fit the face and shall be of sufficient
width to keep the shield clear of theface. The shield shall be held against thehead by an adjustable strap.

7.5.5

A face shield shall bea. transparent,b. impervious to solvent and pesticide
vapours,

An apron shall bec. non-misting,a. impervious to pesticides,

d. durable,b. durable,

e. light in weight, andc. comfortable, andd. affordable.
7.5

Eye and face protection

7.5.1

WARNING: A FACE SHIELD SHALL NOT
BE WORN DURING THE APPLICATION
OF PESTICIDES THAT EMIT TOXICVAPOURS (e.g. organophosphates)
OR LOW BOILING-POINT ORGANICSOLUTIONS (e.g. methyl bromide)

7.5.2

A face shield made of clear transparent
material is a comfortable form of eye
and face protection. A face shield offers
protection against splashes and is lesslikely to mist over than goggles. If eye
protection is needed, and a face shield is
not available, a pair of safety goggles isan acceptable alternative. The materialof the shield shall be impervious to awide range of pesticide formulations.

7.5.3

The head band of the face shield shall bemade of solvent-resistant foam plastic.
The foam plastic shall not absorb spray
droplets and shall be non-irritant to theskin.

f. non-reflective.
7.6

Gloves

7.6.1

CAUTION: Immediately after use andbefore being removed from the hands,
the gloves shall be washed with soap
and water. Contaminated gloves shallnot be touched with bare hands whenbeing removed. The gloves shall beturned inside out and shall be washedagain, and rinsed and allowed to drycompletely before being put away.

7.6.2

Protective gloves are available in avariety of materials and designs. Gloves
shall fit the hands comfortably and shallbe flexible enough to grip a pesticidecontainer and other equipment firmly.
Gloves shall be long enough to covera minimum of 90 mm above the wrist.
Gloves made of nitrile rubber offer
good protection against a wide rangeof pesticides and shall be of light colour
so as to permit visual identificationof contamination. PVC, neopreneand butyl rubber are suitable

87

External Assessment

alternative materials. Lined gloves
are not recommended, since pesticidecontamination can accumulate in thelining material.
7.6.3

7.6.4

Disposable polyethylene gloves orplastics bags may be used as temporary
hand protection, but shall be used forone operation only, and shall then bediscarded.
Gloves shall bea. durable,b. comfortable,
c. flexible,
d. non-slippery, ande. light in colour so as to permit visual
identification of contamination.

7.7

Boots

7.7.1

CAUTION: Boots shall be washed inside
as well as outside at the end of each
day’s work and shall then be allowed todry before being put away.

7.7.2

Rubber boots give protection against
the widest range of pesticides, whereas
leather footwear is unsuitable because
it absorbs some pesticides and leather
cannot be decontaminated.

7.7.3

7.8

The rubber boots shall be at least calfhigh and shall be unlined. Trousers shallbe worn outside the boots to prevent
any spills or splashes from entering theboots. To prevent injury when large steel
drums are being handled, boots withsteel toecaps shall be worn.
Head coverings

7.8.1 A lightweight cotton hat with a brim shallbe worn for field work in hot climates andas protection against spray drift. During
overhead spraying, a waterproof hat andcape shall be worn.”

7.8

All agricultural activities that compromise
the safety of employees by exposing such
employees to danger in the form of harm or
injury, or the risk or threat of such harm or
injury will be considered hazardous work forthe purposes of the OHSA.

7.9

An employer has a general duty to provide andmaintain a working environment that is safe
and without risk to an employee’s health. This
includes – providing and maintaining plant andmachinery that is safe (as far as is reasonably
practicable); eliminating or mitigatinghazards or potential hazards to employees’
health and safety; taking measures to ensurethat everyone in the workplace complies with
the OHSA’s requirements; ensuring that work
is performed under the supervision of anindividual trained in safety issues and able totake precautionary measures; and enforcing
such measures as may be necessary in theinterests of health and safety.

7.10 The employer bears a general duty with regard
to the safety of its employees. Therefore thegeneral duty of safety is on the employer.
However an employee also has a general duty
to take reasonable care in respect of him or
herself as well as his or her colleagues.
Restrictions on CPA use, handling, storing, ordisposing. Most countries will have restrictions onvulnerable populations interacting with CPA (orprohibit this outright), such as persons under 18,
pregnant women, nursing mothers, etc.
Handling and use restrictions
7.11 In terms of section 3 of the Fertilizers, FarmFeeds, Agricultural Remedies and Stock
Remedies Act an employer must register
CPAs.
7.12 Section 7 of the Fertilizers, Farm Feeds,
Agricultural Remedies and Stock Remedies
Act sets out when CPAs may be sold. It
provides that an employer may not sell any

88External Assessment

CPA unless it - has been registered under thename it is being sold; packed in such mannerand mass or volume as may be prescribed; thecontainer in which it is sold, complies with theprescribed requirements and is sealed andlabelled or marked in such manner as may beprescribed or, if it is not sold in a container, itis accompanied by an invoice in terms of theAct; and it is of the composition and efficacy
specified in the application for registration
thereof, possesses all chemical, physical andother properties so specified, and complies
with the prescribed requirements.
7.13 With regards to the handling of CPAs
section 7(2) of the Fertilizers, Farm Feeds,
Agricultural Remedies and Stock Remedies
Act provides “no person shall for reward or in
the course of any industry, trade or businessthat use any agricultural remedy unless he isa pest control operator registered in termsof this Act or otherwise than in the presence
and under the supervision of a pest control
operator so registered.” Thus employers
should ensure that a worker who handles any
CPA is registered as a pest control operator
as set out in section 3 of the Fertilizers, FarmFeeds, Agricultural Remedies and Stock
Remedies Act.
7.14 Clause 10.6 of The South African National
Standard - The handling, storage and disposalof pesticides provides that manually ormechanically operated equipment shallbe used to apply a pesticide in accordancewith the instructions on the label. Driftof pesticide spray or dust (or both) onto
people, animals, adjacent land, public roads,
footpaths, water supplies and crops shallbe avoided, particularly when harvesting istaking place. If containers with concentrated
formulation are transported to filling points
further away from the agrochemical store,
these containers must be locked into a secure
metal or galvanized mesh trunk, which canbe securely chained to the tractor and to thefilling point during spray operations.

Storing
7.15 Regarding the storing of pesticides and otheragrochemicals clause 10 of The South African
National Standard - The handling, storage anddisposal of pesticides further requires thatthe chemical store must be situated above
the 50 year flood line, but preferably above
the 100 year flood line. It must be situatedaway from rivers, dams, boreholes and areas
likely to be flooded. The store must not be ina location where it would be exposed to rockfalls, falling trees and veld fires. The store
should preferably be housed in a separatebuilding, at least 5 m away from any otherbuilding. It must also be more than 10 m
away from any house or livestock buildings,
or buildings that contain feed, fodder or
flammable material. Vegetation within 5 mof building should be cleared, as it could posea fire hazard. If the store is part of a larger
complex, it must be totally sealed off so that
there is no free movement of air between thechemical store and the rest of the building.
The store should also be separated from therest of the complex by an approved firewall if
flammable products are kept in the chemical
store. The chemical store must be in a secure
location where it can be supervised. It shouldbe easily accessible for delivery, dispatch andmore importantly, in the case of fire.
Disposal
7.16 Clause 10.7 of The South African National
Standard - The handling, storage and disposalof pesticides also provides for the disposal of
CPAs and requires that leftover agrochemical
formulations must not end up in rivers,
streams, ditches, storage dams, etc. andcannot be emptied out on the ground. Empty
pesticide containers must not be re-used andmust be disposed of in a manner that avoids
exposure to humans and contamination of theenvironment. Relevant guidelines appearing
on the label(s) should be followed. Empty
containers may not be burned / incinerated
on the farm. This practice is illegal in South89

External Assessment

Africa. Empty containers must be rinsed withintegrated pressure rinsing devices on thesprayer, or triple-rinsed (rinsed at least threetimes) with water, and the rinsate returned tothe spray tank, where after it must be sprayedonto the vineyard or kept secure until disposal
is possible. The latter can be done in the meshcovered evaporation pit at the filling area.
Restrictions on farm equipment (suchmaintenance and licensing for operators)

as7.17 Generally the OHSA places a duty upon
employers to provide and maintain plant andmachinery that is safe (as far as is reasonably
practicable). Therefore an employer must
always ensure that all equipment is maintained
regularly and licensed accordingly.
7.18 More specific to the agriculture industry
is the Compulsory Specification for
Agricultural Tractors which contains detailed
requirements on agricultural tractors in
respect of parts such as proper lights,
mirrors, windows, windscreens, braking etc.
It is a detailed document that is specific toagricultural tractors.
Other legislation related to CPAs, such as how andwhere they may be stored or transported; more
explicit restrictions for specific CPAs; weather
conditions under which CPAs may or may not beapplied; and any other restrictions limiting contact
or exposure with CPAs
More explicit restrictions
7.19 Clause 10.6 of The South African National
Standard - The handling, storage and disposalof pesticides provides that If herbicides
are applied, the drift of herbicide spray or
dust (or both) onto susceptible crops shallbe avoided. Spraying or dusting operations(or both) shall be suspended under adverse
weather conditions to prevent the dangerof contamination. The instructions on
the label concerning wind speed shall befollowed. Harvesting or grazing immediately

after application of a pesticide shall not be
permitted. The withholding period (before
the resumption of harvesting or grazing)stipulated on the label shall be strictly
adhered to, and harmful pesticide residues
shall be present on crops when harvesting or
grazing is resumed.
Other legislation (requirements for handling, use,
storage and disposal of CPAs in South Africa havealready been addressed herein)
7.20 The Rotterdam Convention on the Prior
Informed Consent Procedure for Certain
Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticide inInternational Trade.
7.21 The Montreal Protocol on Substances that
Deplete the Ozone Layer.
7.22 The Stockholm Convention on Persistent
Organic Pollutants.
Requirements related to providing drinking waterand safe housing for workers
7.23 Employers are required to provide safe
drinking water at the workplace in terms of
the OHSA.
7.24 In respect of water at accommodation, theonly specific regulations are that a deduction
for accommodation may only be made if
safe water is provided within 100 metersof the accommodation. There is no specificrequirement to provide water if there is none
at a current dwelling, however, where water isprovided it must meet the minimum required
standards for drinking water.
7.25 Currently the Wine and Agricultural Ethical
Trade Association (WIETA) guidelines
suggest that the employer should ensurethat an adequate and convenient supply of
free potable water is always available toworker at their living facilities (SA guidelines
is 25 litres per person per day). They further
suggest where housing and services are free,and potable water is not reticulated within

90

External Assessment

the house, the employer must ensure thatwater provision is provided at no more than adistance of 100m from the premises.

7.28.3

electricity is available inside thehouse if the infrastructure exists on
the farm;

7.26 There is no specific duty on safe housing
to be provided, however, current WIETA
guidelines suggest that national building
regulations must be incorporated into
accommodation arrangements. The nationalbuilding regulations require that the ownermust ensure that the housing premises is
structurally sound, in a safe condition, in
good repair, and maintained in a waterproof,
windproof and weatherproof condition.
Further it requires that the housing premisesmust be structurally sound and maintained tothat standard, that there is no visible evidenceof cracked walls, broken roofs or where
there are ceilings, installations that pose arisk to the inhabitants and that the doors
and windows open and shut properly andare not broken. The house / facility must be
weatherproof and there should be no visible
leaks in the roof, windows or doors, and thatthe floor is damp proofed with no visible holes
or cracks. Lastly those building materials thathave been damaged or show evidence of rot
or other deterioration shall be repaired or
replaced.

7.28.4

safe water is available inside thehouse or in close proximity, which is
not more than 100m, to the house;
and7.28.5the house is not less than 30m² in size
(there is no restriction on the size ofthe bedroom).

Specific requirements if worker accommodation isprovided

PRINCIPLE 6 – FREEDOM OF
ASSOCIATION
8. Applicable laws:
8.1

The Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995; and8.2

Constitution of the Republic of South Africa,
1996.

9. Your answer:
Laws on organizing unions and their operation(workers’ rights and employers’ obligations)9.1

Freedom of association is a right whichis entrenched in the Constitution. The
Constitution states that everyone has theright to form and join a trade union.

9.2

An employee’s right to freedom of association
is further expanded upon in the LRA, whichstates that every employee has the rightto participate in forming a trade union or
federation of trade unions and to join a tradeunion, subject to its constitution. Similarly,
an employer may join or form an employer’sorganisation.

9.3

No employee may be disadvantaged or
discriminated against for exercising theirright to join a trade union.

9.4

The LRA grants trade unions a list of basicorganisational rights, including - access to an
employer’s premises; to stop-order facilities;
and to relevant information needed topermit its representatives to perform their

7.27 As
discussed
above,
when
workeraccommodation is provided, there are no
specific requirements for employers.
7.28 The law states that an employer may only
make a deduction from a farm worker’s
wages in respect of accommodation
provided to the farm worker in the eventthat the accommodation meets the following
requirements:
7.28.1the house has a roof that is durable
and waterproof;

7.28.2the house has glass windows that canbe opened;91External Assessment

functions effectively and to allow the union
to engage effectively in collective bargaining.
Accordingly an employer has a corresponding
duty to respect these rights, if and when they
are obtained by the union.
Requirements for collective bargaining
9.5

In order for collective bargaining tocommence, an employer must first recognize
a trade union as the bargaining agent for its
employees in a particular bargaining unit.
This recognition is then formalized in a
written agreement known as the recognition
agreement.

9.6

There is no duty to bargain or to recognize
a trade union. A trade union may use
methods such as a strike to force pressure
for recognition. The recognition agreement
will regulate the bargaining process andspecifications.

Prohibitions on union discrimination and employer
interference in their operations
9.7

9.8

Section 4 of the LRA provides employeeswith the right to freedom of association,
which includes the right to join a trade union.
This right is further expanded to include thefreedom to participate in the trade union’s
lawful activities, participate in voting for
officials, office bearers and / or trade union
representatives.
An employer is expressly prohibited frominterfering with these rights by section 5 of
the LRA. Section 5 also prohibits an employer
from discriminating against an employee forexercising any of these rights.

Requirements that worker representatives be in
place
9.9

The number of representatives a trade union
has influences the rights a trade will obtain. A
trade union that has sufficient representation
may enter the employer’s premises forvarious reasons such as recruiting members
or holding elections for trade union officials.

Sufficiently representative unions also gainrights to stop-orders for union dues / fees
and leave for union officials. The numberof members which a trade union has in aworkplace influences whether the employer
recognizes that trade union as a collective
bargaining agent or not.
9.10 Only a trade union that has a majority of
employees in a workplace as its members has
the right to compel an employer to disclose
relevant information needed to permit its
representatives to perform their functions
effectively and to allow the union to engage
effectively in collective bargaining.

PRINCIPLE 7 – COMPLIANCE WITH THE
LAW
10. Applicable laws:
10.1 The Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995;
10.2 The Basic Conditions of Employment Act 75
of 1997;10.3 Sectoral Determination 13;
10.4 The Code of Code Practice: Dismissal Code;and10.5 The Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998.
11. Your answer
Legal requirements to constitute a labor relation(i.e. an employment relationship)
11.1 According to section 213 of the LRA an
employee is:“(a) any person, excluding an independent
contractor, who works for another person
or for the state and who receives, or isentitled to receive, any remuneration;and(b) any other person who in any mannerassists in carrying out or conducting thebusiness of an employer and employee
andemployment
havemeanings
corresponding to that of employee.”
92External Assessment

11.2 Furthermore to prevent employers fromlabelling workers as contractors in order toavoid employment rights and benefits, the law
sets out factors to determine whether a personis actually an ‘employee’. In this regard, ourcourts seek to discover the true relationshipbetween the parties, notwithstanding
the wording of any employment contractconcluded between them.
The contractconcluded between the parties is only one of
the factors which a court will consider when
determining whether or not an employment
relationship exists between the parties. South
African law favours a ‘substance over form’approach.
11.3 Over the years employers have shaped
employment relations to informalise working
arrangements and thus deprive employeesof their basic statutory rights. It was partly
in response to these developments that the
rebuttable presumption of employment
was included in the LRA and BCEA, but thispresumption only applies to persons earning
below the prescribed threshold amount(R205 433.33 per annum). The presumption
operates as follows – in any proceedings interms of the LRA and the BCEA in which any
person alleges that they are an employee,that person is presumed to be an employee
if they render services to another person
and any one of the following factors, as
listed in Section 200A of the LRA is present
in the relationship. The factors that trigger
the presumption are - the manner in which
the person works is subject to the control
or direction of another person; the person’s
hours of work are subject to the control ordirection of another person; in the case of aperson who works for an organisation, theperson forms part of that organisation; theperson has worked for that other person for
an average of at least 40 hours per monthover the last three months; the person is
economically dependent on the other person

for whom he or she works or renders services;the person is provided with tools of trade orwork equipment by the other person; or the
person only works for or renders services to
one person. The presumption does not alter
the statutory definition of ‘employee’. In
other words, the fact that a person satisfies
one or more of the seven factors listed in thepresumption does not mean that the person
is in fact an employee. Normally, a person
claiming to be an employee bears the onusof proving that he or she is an employee. The
presumption is merely an ‘evidentiary device
calculated to switch the onus of proof of
employment’ in circumstances in which any
one of the indicators is established. If theparty alleged to be an employer is unable todischarge the negative onus and convince
the decision – maker that the applicant is not
an employee, the decision – maker is boundto find that the applicant is an employee as
defined.
11.4 Furthermore in terms of section 9 the EE Act,an applicant for employment is also considered
to be an employee for the purposes of:
11.4.1the prohibition against
discrimination etc.;

unfair

11.4.2the prohibition on medical testingof such applicant (unless legislation
requires or justifies the testing,for example section 5.2.4 of The
South African National Standard The handling, storage and disposalof pesticides which requires thatan initial health evaluation must
be carried out by an occupational
medical practitioner immediately
before employment, or within 14 daysof commencement of employment);
and

11.4.3the prohibition on psychologicaltesting.

93

External Assessment

Laws and regulations on employment contracts(incl. necessity for written employment contracts,
and if it is not, what are the grounds to consider forthe existence of a verbal employment agreement) /Required content for written employment contracts(*Note – questions 1.2 and 1.3 above addressed
together below)

11.6.911.5 The BCEA provides minimum rights andentitlements to employees. These minimum

11.6.11 how frequently remuneration will be
paid;

standards are further expanded upon in
Sectoral Determination 13. Parties may
not contract for less favourable terms thanprovided in the relevant laws (such as minimum
wage provisions as already discussed).
11.6 A written employment contract is required
to the extent that an employer must supply
an employee, when the employee commences
employment, with the following particulars inwriting:
11.6.1the full name and address of theemployer;

11.6.2the name and occupation of the farmworker, or a brief description of thework for which the farm worker is
employed;

11.6.3the place of work, and, where thefarm worker is required or permitted
to work at various places, anindication of this;11.6.4the date on which the employment
began;

11.6.5the farm worker’s ordinary hours ofwork and days of work;

11.6.6the farm worker’s wage or the rate
and method of calculating wages;

11.6.7the rate of pay for overtime work;

11.6.8any other cash payments that thefarm worker is entitled to;any food or accommodation paymentthat the farm worker is entitledto and the value of the food or
accommodation;

11.6.10 any other payment in kind received
by the farm worker;

11.6.12 any deductions to be made from thefarm worker’s remuneration;
11.6.13 the leave to which the farm worker isentitled;
11.6.14 the period of notice required
to terminate employment, or if
employment is for a specified period,
the date when employment is toterminate;
11.6.15 a description of any council or
sectoral determination which covers
the employer’s business;
11.6.16 any period of employment witha previous employer that counts
towards the farm worker’s period of
employment; and11.6.17 a list of any other documentsthat form part of the contract of
employment, indicating a place thatis reasonably accessible to the farmworker where a copy of each may beobtained.
Deadline for conclusion of the contract (e.g. on thedate of hire or within 30 days of hire)
11.7 Written particulars of employment are to
be provided when employment commences.
Written employment contracts are notcompulsory though and there is therefore
no statutory deadline for the concluding of awritten contract.

94

External Assessment

Requirements for various types of contracts(indefinite term, definite term, temporary workers,
probationary workers)
11.8

Indefinite term contracts - A contract of
employment for an indefinite term does
not have any special requirements to form
except that its duration must be for anindefinite period.

11.9

Definite term and temporary workers Definite term contracts and temporary
worker contracts are regulated in the samemanner as both will be used in respect of
employees / workers who will be engaged
for a certain duration or in respect of a
specific project. Regarding contracts fora definite term (i.e. fixed term contracts) it
is important to note that in the event of anagreement lasting longer than three months,
there are three requirements that have to be
met, in the absence of which the worker may
be deemed to be a permanent employee.
Firstly, the nature of the work must be for alimited duration or there must be some otherjustifiable reason for fixing the term of thecontract. Secondly, the fixed term agreement
must be in writing. Thirdly, the contract mustspecify the ‘justifiable reason’ for concluding
the agreement. The LRA provides a nonexhaustive list of justifiable reasons, which
are as follows - replacing another employee
who is temporarily absent from work; atemporary increase in work volume which is
not expected to endure beyond 12 months; astudent or recent graduate who is employed
to undergo training or gain work experience;
exclusive work on a specific project thathas a limited or defined duration; a noncitizen who has been granted a temporary
work permit; and seasonal work; an official
public works scheme or similar public job
creation scheme; the position is fundedby an external source for a limited period;
and the employment of a person beyond
the normal or agreed retirement age. If an

employer concludes a definite term contract
in contravention of these requirements, theemployee may be deemed to be employedindefinitely.
Furthermore fixed term
employees who are employed for longer than
three months may not be less favourably
treated than employees employed on an
indefinite basis for performing the sameor similar work. Fixed term employees thathave worked for a period of 24 months ormore are, upon the expiry of the contract,
entitled to one week’s remuneration foreach completed year of service, unless theemployer procures similar employment
conditions with a different employer for theemployee.
11.10 Probationary contracts / workers - An
employer is entitled to require an employee
to serve a period of probation before theemployee’s appointment is confirmed.
Item 8(b) of the Code of Good Practice:
Dismissal (the Code) provides that the
purpose of probation is to “give theemployer an opportunity to evaluate theemployee’s performance before confirming
the appointment”. Probation should not be
used for other purposes, such as to deprive
the employee of the status of permanent
employment. For example, a practice ofdismissing employees who complete theirprobation periods and replacing them with
newly-hired probationary employees is notconsistent with the purpose of probation.
Being on probation does not mean thatthe employee’s employment is “at will” andtherefore that the employee’s employment
can be terminated on notice during theprobation period if the employee fails toperform satisfactorily. In terminating an
employee’s employment during or upon
the conclusion of the probation period,
the employer is therefore still required toact procedurally fairly. The only benefit
to a probation period is that the reasons95External Assessment

upon which an employer may rely may beless compelling than if the employee was
not on probation. The period of probation
should be reasonable and not unjustifiably
long. The nature of the job, the employee’s
level of skill and the time it will take for theemployee to perform the requisite tasks aresome of the factors that should be taken into
account when deciding on the duration of
the probation period.
Requirements for termination of employment(termination with or without cause, wrongfuldismissal, notice periods required to end
employment)
11.11 Statutorily, the relevant termination / notice
periods are as follows:
11.11.1 one week, if the farm worker has
been employed for six months or
less;
11.11.2 two weeks, if the farm worker has
been employed for between six
months and one year; or

11.12 An employer is not entitled to terminate an
employment contract without cause. Validcauses for termination include misconduct,
incapacity due to ill-health or poor
performance, for operational requirements,
and incompatibility. Where there is a valid
reason in law for the dismissal, such dismissal
must still be an appropriate sanction (i.e.
not too harsh). Any dismissal must also beprocedurally fair. If this is not adhered to an
employer may face an unfair discrimination
claim.
Options for farmers to obtain legal assistance about
their obligations (e.g. government department, local
labor office, farmers association etc.)
11.13 Farmers can obtain legal assistance about
their obligations as employers from the local
offices of the Department of Labour.
Specific requirements for leaf growing contracts(government imposed templates, government
approval of contract, freedom to choose the termsof the contract)11.14 There is none.

11.11.3 four weeks, if the farm worker has
been employed for more than one
year.

96

External Assessment

Appendix IV – Agreement for Accommodation
Below is the ULSA template for farmers to formalize the agreement on housing with their workers.

New Housing
Iherewith acknowledge that I have discussed the new housing with the labour.

The discussions with each individual employee was done and the process that they will be paying for theaccommodation according to the minimum standards and the deductions that will be made.
The employee understands the situation and agrees with the deductions made every month for the upgradedhousing to the minimum standards according to the law.
I
as the Employer understand the minimum standards of on farm accommodation andagrees with the needs to the employee according to the law. The deductions will be made accordingly.

I(Employee) acknowledges that I understand and agrees with the deductions that will
be made for the accommodation.

Employer

Employer97

External Assessment

Appendix V – Communication materials

GTC poster(front)(back)
Support mechanism business card.

98External Assessment

Support mechanism poster99

External Assessment

Appendix VI – Analysis of farm data
From the Farm Profiles, only data regarding (1)other crops, (2) family members on the farm (except
for spouse information), (3) ALP Communciation
to farmer and (4) living conditions were madeavailable to CU as there were problems with thedata warehouse at the time of the assessment,
resulting in the information not being available tothe assessment team.
Socio-economic information for Farm Profiles:• For 18 Farm Profiles (45%) information was
missing– – 9 Farm Profiles missed information on
hectares– – 12 Farm Profiles missed information oncontracts/payment methods for one or moregroups of workers (permanent/temporary/migrant)– – For 1 farm the column ‘first-aid training’ wasmarked yes, while no workers at the farm hadreceived first aid training.
• For 7 Cape farms (39%) the categorization
records did not fully match with the situation at
the farm– – For 5 farms the column ‘CPA PPE’ was marked‘yes’ while PPE was not available at the farm
– – For 2 farms the column ‘legal accommodation’was marked ‘yes‘ while accommodation was
not meeting the standard.
– – For 1 farm the column ‘first-aid training’ wasmarked yes, while no workers at the farm hadreceived first-aid training.
– – For 1 farm the column ‘hand in CPA Container’
was marked yes, while CPA Containers were
not disposed correctly.

• For 11 Farm Profiles (28%) part of the information
was not corresponding with the situation at thefarm– – For 1 Farm Profile the information on hectares
was not matching with the information on thefarm– – For 10 Farm Profiles this consideredinformation regarding contract/payment
methods for one or more groups of workers(permanent/temporary/migrant)
Categorization data for seven ALP related topics:• For 3 Limpopo farms (16%) the categorization
records did not fully match with the situation at
the farm– – For 1 farm the column ‘GTC PPE’ was marked‘yes’ while PPE was not available at the farm
– – For 1 farm the column ‘legal accommodation’was marked ‘yes‘ while accommodation was
not meeting the standard.

100External Assessment

Appendix VII – ULSA Producer ALP declaration

101External Assessment

Appendix VIII – Glossary
ALP

Agricultural Labor Practices

ALP Code

PMI’s Agricultural Labor Practices Code

ALP Code Principle

Short statements that set expectations of how the farmer should manage
labor on his/her farm in seven focus areas

ALP Program

Agricultural Labor Practices Program

COIDA

Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act, To provide forcompensation for disablement caused by occupational injuries or diseases
sustained or contracted by employees in the course of their employment, orfor death resulting from such injuries or diseases; and to provide for mattersconnected therewith

Correction

Any action that is taken to eliminate a situation not meeting the standard

Corrective action

Steps taken to remove the causes of a situation not meeting the standard

CPA

Crop Protection Agents

Crew leader

Person responsible for managing a group of workers

CU

Control Union

Family farm

Farm that depends mainly on family members for the production of tobacco

Farm Profiles

A data collecting tool developed by PMI with Verité to track the socioeconomic profile of the farms

GAP

Good Agricultural Practices

GTC

Green Tobacco Condition, the local term used for Green Tobacco Sickness.

GTS

Green Tobacco Sickness

Leaf tobacco supplierCompany that has a contract with PMI to supply tobacco but is not a farmer

Measurable Standard

A Measurable Standard defines a good labor practice on a tobacco farm andhelps determining to what extent the labor conditions and practices on a
tobacco farm are in line with the ALP Code Principles

Migrant labor

Labor coming from outside the farm’s immediate geographic area

MobiLeaf

Electronic data collection system.

NGO

Non-Governmental Organization

NTRM

Non-Tobacco-Related-Materials

Piece work

Payment at a fixed rate per unit of production/work

PMI

Philip Morris International, Inc. or any of its direct or indirect subsidiaries

PPE

Personal Protection Equipment

Preventive action

Steps taken to remove the causes of potential situations not meeting thestandard

Prompt Action

A situation in which workers’ physical or mental well-being might be at risk,children or a vulnerable group – pregnant women, the elderly - are in danger,
or workers might not be free to leave their job

Root cause

The underlying reason that caused a situation not meeting the standard102

External Assessment

Root cause analysis

A set of analyzing and problem solving techniques targeted at identifying
the underlying reason that caused a situation not meeting the standard

Sharecropping

A system of agriculture in which the farmer has a partner (“socio”) who
either works together with the farmer or manages a plot of land. Costsof inputs and/or revenue are shared.

STP

Sustainable Tobacco Production

UIF

Unemployment Insurance Fund, which provides compensation to
insured workers that became unemployed.

ULT

Universal Leaf Tobacco

ULSA

Universal Leaf South Africa, a local subsidiary of Universal

Support mechanism

A way for workers to access information and get support in difficult
situations and for workers and farmers to get support in mediating
disputes. Farmers have access to additional services to improve laborand business practices.

103