ESKOM RESPONDS TO QUESTIONS ABOUT EXCLUDING WHITE MALES FROM SENIOR MANAGEMENT SHORTLIST
- BEE NEWS
- Nov 13, 2025
- 5 min read
Jan Vermeulen | 13 November 2025
Eskom has denied that it excludes any race or gender in its recruitment process, despite fighting in the Labour Appeal Court to be allowed to reject white male applicants from being shortlisted for an appointment.
The state-owned power utility recently won its appeal against a Labour Court decision, which found that Eskom’s practice of not shortlisting white males for an advertised post was unlawful.
The matter dates back to 2017, when Eskom advertised a post for a “Senior Manager: Outage Execution at Peaking Power Station”.
Alwyn Erasmus, who worked at Eskom for 30 years, applied for the position, along with numerous other employees.
On his application form, Erasmus indicated that he is an African. He and other candidates who met the minimum requirements were shortlisted.
Numerous staff from Eskom’s Human Resources Department interviewed the candidates, and Erasmus was recommended for the post but not appointed.
The Presiding Officer found that Erasmus’ appointment would not have caused a decline in the employment equity.
However, white males were overrepresented by 16% in the Group Technology Division (GTD). Eskom saw this as a missed opportunity to improve the employment equity at the GTD.
Eskom’s Human Resources division confirmed that Erasmus would not have been shortlisted if he had indicated that he was white instead of African.
Erasmus requested details about the decision under the Promotion of Access to Information Act, but Eskom refused.
Trade union Solidarity then brought the issue to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) as an unfair discrimination dispute on Erasmus’s behalf.
In August 2018, the CCMA issued a certificate of outcome indicating that the matter remained unresolved. Solidarity then approached the Labour Court.
In 2024, Judge Hilary Rabkin-Naicker ruled that Eskom’s approach was an unfair form of discrimination that violated the Employment Equity Act.
Rabkin-Naicker held that rejecting applicants from non-designated groups at the shortlisting stage created an absolute barrier to prospective employment and advancement, contravening the Act.
The Labour Appeal Court overturned this ruling, reasoning that Eskom’s policy of pipelining and giving preference to African males and females was rational.
Pipelining involves promoting designated groups, in this case, women and black men, from middle management to reach the desired race and gender balance at the top.
“This was a rational way to target a particular class of persons who have been susceptible to unfair discrimination at that level,” the panel of three judges ruled.
“It was conceived to protect and advance them, and it promotes equality.”
Eskom disputes media reports
Eskom was critical of media reports stating that its Labour Appeal Court victory allowed it to exclude white males from senior management positions.
To better understand its position, MyBroadband contacted the power utility with five questions, asking it to answer each one separately.
1. Does Eskom view excluding a specific race or gender from being shortlisted as discrimination?
No answer.
2. If not, can you explain why you don’t view this as discrimination?
No answer.
3. Do you anticipate that you will, in future, exclude people based on race or gender from being shortlisted to meet your employment equity targets?
No answer.
4. In 2022, Eskom chair Mteto Nyati said that to save the company, empowerment rules should be changed. He specifically mentioned employment equity targets. Does he stand by those remarks?
No answer.
5. Can you explain where in the ruling it says that excluding someone at the shortlisting stage based on race or gender is not an absolute barrier?
No answer.
Eskom provides an official statement
Instead of answering MyBroadband’s questions, Eskom provided a statement regarding the court ruling and its Employment Equity statement.
“While MyBroadband’s questions follow its own public interpretation of the court order, Eskom’s position remains consistent: we follow the rule of law,” an Eskom spokesperson said.
“We do not exclude any race, gender or people living with disabilities, as stated in our response to your recent article.”
Eskom stated that its HR strategy is grounded in building a high-performance, ethical organisation, powered by an inclusive culture that values diversity.
“Our recruitment processes uphold the principles of fairness, representation, and inclusion, in line with South Africa’s Employment Equity Act and constitutional framework,” it said.
“Eskom does not practise or support unfair discrimination of any kind.”
The power utility maintained that the Labour Appeal Court confirmed that its employment equity plans and practices are lawful, inclusive, and do not exclude any group.
“The Court affirmed that equity and representivity considerations may legitimately be applied during recruitment, provided they are not rigid quotas or absolute barriers,” it said.
“Our approach to transformation is one of inclusion and redress, not exclusion.”
Eskom said employment equity targets guide long-term transformation, while each appointment remains grounded in fairness, competence, and performance.
“Transformation and performance are not competing goals; they are mutually reinforcing,” it said.
“Eskom’s strength lies in attracting and developing diverse talent to build a more representative, capable, and ethical organisation that delivers sustainable energy for South Africa.”
Solidarity responds to Labour Appeal Court judgment and Eskom
MyBroadband also contacted trade union Solidarity for comment on the case and Eskom’s remarks on Twitter. Anton van der Bijl, the deputy CEO and head of legal services, directly addressed our questions.
1. Do you agree with the Labour Appeal Court’s judgment?Whilst we are obviously disappointed with the judgment, we are obtaining legal advice as to whether there are grounds for a further referral of the matter.
2. In its response to our report about the ruling, Eskom made several statements, including “Eskom does not exclude any race group from employment.” Is that true?I think they are disingenuous. Obviously, Eskom’s workforce consists of many races. But they have a strict race-based policy inherent in all employment decisions made.
If that were not true, obviously, there would not have been the necessity for us to financially invest heavily in this Court case to ensure that justice prevails.
3. Eskom said: “The Labour Appeal Court affirmed that Eskom’s employment equity measures are lawful, rational, and do not constitute an absolute barrier to any group.” Is this accurate?
If that is Eskom’s deduction from this court case, it’s a bit of a stretch of the imagination. The court declared this specific matter, and the specific non-appointment of Mr Erasmus, as not discriminatory. Nothing more, nothing less.
4. Eskom said: “Eskom believes that transformation is about redress, not exclusion.” Do you agree with this statement?
Quite logically, if it were about redress, a designated person would have been appointed. Yet Mr Erasmus was “excluded” without someone being “redressed”.
How this can be touted as any sort of win, in any way, is beyond imagination. Yet again, we as taxpayers must foot the bill for work not being done due to someone not being appointed based on the colour of their skin.
5. Will you be challenging the Labour Appeal Court’s judgment? If so, where would a further appeal be heard?
See my answer to question 1.
‘Disclaimer - The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the BEE CHAMBER’.