'n Regsvergelykende ondersoek na geskikte vaderskapsverlof vir manlike werknemers in Suid-Afrika

Abstract

Ingevolge die Suid-Afrikaanse arbeidsreg word vaderskapsverlof, in die ware sin van die woord, tans geensins erken nie. Daarteenoor is swanger werknemers ingevolge artikel 25 van die Wet op Basiese Diensvoorwaardes 75 van 1997 (hierna die WBDV) op vier opeenvolgende maande kraamverlof geregtig. Ingevolge die gemenereg was swanger werknemers aan growwe diskriminasie blootgestel, wat die statutêre beskerming vir vroue (soos wat in artikel 25 verskans is) noodsaaklik gemaak het. Vanweë die feit dat artikel 25 die manlike werknemer se regsposisie verswyg, ontstaan die vraag dus wat die manlike werknemer se regte na die geboorte van sy kind behels. Alhoewel vaderskapsverlof as sodanig nie erken word nie, maak artikel 27 van die WBDV vir gesinsverantwoordelikheidsverlof voorsiening. Dit blyk uit artikel 27 se bepalings dat gesinsverantwoordelikheidsverlof, onder andere, vir die geboorte van 'n (manlike) werknemer se kind geneem kan word. Gesinsverantwoordelik-heidsverlof is egter tot 'n maksimum van drie dae per jaar beperk en is onvoldoende in terme van die regsprobleem voor hande. Aangesien daar so 'n drastiese verskil tussen die hoeveelheid verlofsdae wat tot die beskikking van 'n manlike en vroulike werknemer met die geboorte van die kind bestaan, sou die argument aangevoer kon word dat artikel 25 in hierdie verband diskriminerend van aard is. Sodanige argument spruitvoort uit die reg van alle werknemers om nie aan onbillike diskriminasie, onder andere op geslag gebaseer, onderwerp te word nie. Ondanks gelykheidsregte bly die manlike werknemer se regsposisie rakende vaderskapsverlof nogtans onbeantwoord. In hierdie studie word die standpunt wel ingeneem dat artikel 25 van die WBDV nie diskriminerend van aard is nie aangesien die doel van artikel 25 spesifiek gerig is op die fisiese asook psigiese herstel van die vroulike werknemer ná die geboorte van haar kind. Die wetgewing maak egter nie voorsiening vir gevalle waar die oogmerke van artikel 25 nie van toepassing is, maar 'n pasgebore baba steeds sorg vereis. Byvoorbeeld, soos in omstandighede waar die vader die enigste persoon is wat na die pasgebore baba kan omsien of waar daar nie 'n persoon in die betrokke situasie is wat self geboorte geskenk het nie. Die aspek betreffende verlof vir vaders het in MIA v State Information Technology Agency (Pty) ter sprake gekom – waar 'n homoseksuele man (wat ingevolge die Civil Union Act met 'n ander getroud is en 'n baba saam met hom by wyse van 'n surrogaatma gehad het) beweer het dat die wetgewing en die werkgewer se verlofsbeleid diskriminerend van aard is, aangesien dit kraamverlof slegs vir vroulike werknemers erken. Die bogenoemde saak dien as hoeksteen vir hierdie studie ter kontekstualisering van die regsprobleem. Die Internasionale Arbeidsorganisasie se standaarde en Konvensies rakende kraam- asook vaderskapsverlof word oorweeg en dien as 'n internasionale maatstaf waarteen die Suid-Afrikaanse posisie van manlike werknemers gemeet word. Deur middel van 'n regsvergelykende ondersoek word die Suid-Afrikaanse reg teen die Sweedse reg opgeweeg. Verlof vir vaders (manlike werknemers) word eksklusief ingevolge die Sweedse arbeidsreg erken. Die Sweedse posisie kan as 'n riglyn vir Suid-Afrika leiding bied. Alhoewel geslagsgelykheid van kritieke belang is, speel die beste belang van die kind deurgaans in hierdie studie 'n deurslaggewende rol. Die vader se teenwoordigheid in die vroeë stadium van die kind se lewe dra by tot die kind se kognitiewe ontwikkeling. Die manlike werknemer het dus 'n vaderlike rol om te vervul, maar hierdie rol word deur die huidige arbeidswetgewing belemmer. Hierdie studie is daarop gefokus om 'n rasionaal (ratio) vir die statutêre erkenning van verlof vir vaders uiteen te sit. Vaderlike verlof is noodsaaklik – dit verseker geslagsgelykheid en die beste belang van die kind, vereenselwig werk met die gesinslewe en maak ook voorsiening vir omstandighede waarin 'n werknemer nie vir tradisionele kraamverlof (ingevolge artikel 25) kwalifiseer nie. 'n Opsigtelike leemte (lacuna) bestaan in die Suid-Afrikaanse arbeidsreg en in hierdie studie word gedeelde ouerskapsverlof (wat tot beide manlike en vroulike werknemers se beskikking is) as 'n moontlike oplossing vir die regsprobleem voorgehou. In terms of the South African labour law, paternity leave (in the true sense of the word) is currently by no means acknowledged. As opposed to this, pregnant employees are entitled to four consecutive months maternity leave in terms of section 25 of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act 75 of 1997 (hereafter the BCEA). In terms of the common law, pregnant employees were exposed to gross discrimination, which necessitated statutory protection for women (as entrenched in section 25). Due to the fact that section 25 conceals the male employee's legal position, the question therefore arises as to what the male employee's rights after the birth of his child entail. Although paternity leave (as such) is not acknowledged in terms of the South African labour law, section 27 of the BCEA provides for family responsibility leave. From the provisions of section 27, it seems that family responsibility leave can be taken for the birth of a (male) employee's child. However, family responsibility leave is not only for the birth of a child but also covers a variety of family matters such as illness or death of a loved-one. It should be noted that family responsibility leave is limited to a maximum of three days per annum. Family responsibility leave is thus inadequate with regards to the legal question at hand. Since such a drastic difference exists between the amount of leave available to male and female employees regarding the birth of a child, the argument could be put forward that section 25, in this respect, is discriminating in nature. Such an argument could arise from all employees' right to not be exposed to unfair discrimination based, amongst others, on gender. Irrespective of equality rights, the male employee's legal position concerning paternity leave is nevertheless left unanswered. In this study the point of view is established that section 25 of the BCEA is indeed not discriminating in nature, since the aim of section 25 is specifically focused on the physical as well as psychological convalescence of the female employee after the birth of her child. However, the labour legislation does not make provision for cases where the purviews of section 25 are not applicable – meanwhile a newborn baby still requires care. For instance, in circumstances in which the father is the only person who can take care of the newborn baby or where there is no person (parent) in the specific situation who had given birth. The aspect concerning leave for fathers came up for discussion in MIA v State Information Technology Agency (Pty) – in which a homosexual man (who was married to another man in terms of the Civil Union Act and had a baby together by means of a surrogate mother) alleged that the labour legislation and the employer's leave policy was discriminating in nature, since it only acknowledges maternity leave for female employees. This case law serves as the cornerstone of this study so as to contextualise the legal problem. The International Labour Organisation's standards and Conventions regarding maternity as well as paternity leave are considered and serve as an international criterion against which the South African position of male employees is measured. By means of a comparative study, the South African labour law is set off against that of Sweden. Leave for fathers (male employees) is exclusively acknowledged in terms of the Swedish labour law. The Swedish position can guide South Africa with regards to paternity leave for male employees. Although gender equality is of crucial importance, the best interest of the child plays a deciding role throughout this study. The father's presence in the early stages of the child's life contributes to the child's cognitive development. Thus the male employee has a fatherly role to fulfill, but this role is obstructed by the current labour legislation. This study is focused on setting out a rationale (ratio) for the statutory acknowledgement of leave for fathers. Paternity leave is essential – it ensures gender equality and the best interest of the child, aligns work with family life and also makes provision for circumstances where no employee qualifies for traditional maternity leave. A conspicuous void (lacuna) appears in the South African labour law and in this study shared parental leave (which is available to both male and female employees) is proffered as a possible solution to the legal problem at hand