ZA Deputy Minister Bernice Swarts Meets With Working On Fire to Discuss Labour Relations

The Deputy Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment, Bernice Swarts, recently engaged with participants of the Working on Fire (WOF) Programme to address significant labour relations concerns. Key issues raised included demands for cost-of-living wage adjustments, the temporary nature of their employment, the quality and relevance of skills development, and occupational health and safety matters. The WOF Programme, an initiative of the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE) implemented under the Expanded Public Works Programme (EPWP) framework, aims to provide temporary job creation and poverty alleviation through wildfire management. This meeting underscores the ongoing tension between the programme's temporary employment mandate and the participants' aspirations for more stable and equitable working conditions, prompting a re-evaluation of the legal and practical implications of EPWP employment.

South Africa's Working on Fire (WOF) Programme, a vital initiative for wildfire prevention and suppression, recently became the focal point of a national consultative meeting led by Deputy Minister Bernice Swarts of the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE). The meeting, prompted by reports of potential industrial action, aimed to directly address a spectrum of labour relations concerns voiced by WOF participants across the country. These concerns are not new, reflecting a persistent challenge in balancing the government's objective of temporary job creation and skills development through the Expanded Public Works Programme (EPWP) with the participants' fundamental rights and expectations as individuals performing essential services.

The dialogue initiated by the Deputy Minister highlights a critical juncture for the WOF Programme, which employs thousands of individuals in high-risk firefighting roles. The grievances, ranging from inadequate wage adjustments to the precariousness of their temporary contracts and issues surrounding occupational health and safety, underscore the complex legal and socio-economic landscape governing public works initiatives. This article will delve into the statutory and doctrinal context of the WOF Programme, analyse the legal implications of the participants' employment status within the EPWP framework, and examine the broader challenges in reconciling the programme's mandate with the evolving demands for fair labour practices in South Africa.

The Working on Fire (WOF) Programme, launched in September 2003, is a flagship government-funded initiative under the umbrella of the Expanded Public Works Programme (EPWP). Its primary objectives are poverty alleviation, job creation, and skills development, particularly for marginalised communities, while simultaneously addressing the critical need for integrated fire management and wildfire suppression across South Africa. The DFFE oversees and funds the programme, which involves recruiting and training young men and women as veld and forest firefighters.

Legally, the employment conditions for EPWP participants, including those in WOF, are primarily governed by the Basic Conditions of Employment Act 75 of 1997 (BCEA) and specific Ministerial Determinations issued under Section 50 of the BCEA. These determinations establish special conditions of employment for EPWP participants, often deviating from standard labour law provisions to accommodate the programme's temporary, job-creation focus. For instance, the Ministerial Determination for Expanded Public Works Programmes outlines provisions regarding minimum wages, working hours, and leave, while also specifying that EPWP employment is temporary and does not typically qualify for Unemployment Insurance Fund (UIF) benefits. The Department's implementation model often involves contracting with a service provider, such as Kishugu Holdings, to manage and implement the programme, with the service provider then contracting the participants. This multi-layered structure can complicate the identification of the ultimate employer and the application of labour rights.

The core of the labour relations concerns within the Working on Fire Programme revolves around the interpretation and application of the EPWP framework, particularly concerning the 'temporary' nature of employment and the adequacy of remuneration and benefits. Participants have consistently raised issues such as cost-of-living wage adjustments, the temporary status of their contracts, occupational health and safety (OHS), the quality of skills development, and administrative matters like timely payslips and tax.

While the EPWP framework, including the Ministerial Determination, explicitly states that employment is temporary and aims to provide work opportunities and training as a launchpad into the broader labour market, the reality for many WOF participants is often long-term engagement. This disjuncture was highlighted in the Labour Appeal Court case of *Working On Fire (Pty) Ltd v National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA) and Others* (DA5/2021) [2022] ZALAC 114, where the court acknowledged that the employment of firefighters had, in practice, deviated from the originally envisaged temporary and short-term nature, with some individuals working for many years. This extended tenure challenges the fundamental premise of EPWP employment and raises questions about whether participants should accrue more comprehensive labour rights typically associated with permanent employment.

Trade unions, such as NUMSA, have previously lodged disputes with the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) against Working on Fire, citing low wages, poor working conditions, and the denial of benefits like provident funds, paid annual leave, and maternity leave. The essential service nature of firefighting further complicates these disputes, as it restricts the right to strike, often leading to mutual interest arbitrations. The DFFE's position has been that WOF operates within the EPWP framework, where stipends and annual increments are determined by the Minister of Environmental Affairs, limiting the implementing agent's authority to unilaterally change these rates. However, the Deputy Minister's recent commitment to addressing issues like Project Progress Compliance, Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) requirements, and Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act (COIDA) claims indicates a recognition of the need to enhance protections within the existing framework.

Furthermore, the WOF Programme has been subject to recent legal challenges concerning its tender awards, as seen in cases like *Working on Fire (Pty) Ltd v Minister of the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment and Others* (2026-096011) [2026] ZAGPPHC 549. These disputes over the appointment of service providers, while not directly about participant labour rights, introduce instability that can indirectly impact the continuity of employment and the overall programme. The DFFE's model, where the department pays wages directly even if a service provider changes, aims to mitigate some of this instability, but the underlying contractual arrangements remain complex. The ongoing discussions and commitments by the Deputy Minister signal a potential shift towards a more robust interpretation and enforcement of the Code of Good Practice for EPWP, ensuring that while the programme serves its job creation mandate, the welfare and rights of its participants are adequately safeguarded.

The recent national consultative meeting between the Deputy Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment and Working on Fire participants underscores the persistent legal and practical challenges inherent in public works programmes like WOF. While the EPWP framework is designed to provide temporary employment and skills development for poverty alleviation, the reality of long-term engagement for many participants necessitates a nuanced approach to labour relations. The commitment by the DFFE to address concerns ranging from wage adjustments and occupational health and safety to administrative efficiencies and training quality is a crucial step towards ensuring that the programme's social mandate does not inadvertently compromise the fundamental rights of its participants.

For legal practitioners, this development signals the ongoing importance of scrutinising the contractual arrangements and actual working conditions within EPWP initiatives. The tension between the 'temporary' nature of EPWP employment and the practical realities of extended service, as acknowledged by the Labour Appeal Court, suggests that future litigation may continue to challenge the boundaries of the EPWP Ministerial Determination and the broader definitions of 'employee' under South African labour law. Attorneys advising clients involved in public works programmes, whether as implementing agents or participants, should closely monitor legislative amendments, policy adjustments, and judicial interpretations to ensure compliance and advocate for equitable labour practices that balance job creation objectives with the constitutional right to fair labour practices.