KZN sweatshops sued for labour law violations
Bargaining council alleges that pay is below minimum wage and workers endure appalling conditions.
Photos of the living conditions, taken by inspectors from the National Bargaining Council for the Clothing Manufacturing Industry, at Drake Clothing in KwaZulu-Natal. Inspections are carried out with SARS, immigration officials and the police. There have been some arrests for breaking immigration law. Photos supplied (GroundUp)
- The National Bargaining Council for the Clothing Manufacturing Industry wants the high court to liquidate Drake Clothing, which supplies major retail brands including Pep, Mr Price and Foschini.
- The bargaining council alleges that the company runs sham co-operatives where labour laws are flouted.
- Council agents have found workers paid below minimum wage for long hours, and being forced to live together in some cases.
The National Bargaining Council for the Clothing Manufacturing Industry has launched legal proceedings to address what it says is a plague of sweatshops with appalling working conditions in KwaZulu-Natal.
The factories, which supply major retail brands including Pep, Mr Price, and Foschini, have been compared to overcrowded prisons.
In its application to the KZN High Court in Pietermaritzburg, which has been set down to be heard in April, the bargaining council zones in on Drake Clothing, a design house based in Pinetown. It is seeking an order for the “solvent winding up”, or liquidation, of the company.
This, the bargaining council’s KZN general secretary Chantal Naidoo says, it is “on the basis that it is both just and equitable and in the public interest to do so”.
The application cites the retail brands as respondents, while not asking for any relief against them, unless they oppose the application. The bargaining council alleges that the brands benefit from “sham co-operatives” which are being used to flout labour laws and exploit workers to minimise costs and maximise profits.
Naidoo describes an “alarming development in the industry” where manufacturers pay low wages, forcing employees to sleep in factories and work impermissibly long hours in unsafe and deplorable working conditions.
The council alleges that essential to Drake’s business model and practices is its sustained failure and refusal to comply with protective legislation and bargaining council agreements.
These agreements are binding on the company and its proxies, which manufacture the clothing Drake designs and supplies.
Naidoo said Drake Clothing created confidential design and production plans, inspected and controlled fabric selection, produced sample garments, and then instructed manufacturers to produce garments to specification for supply to various retailers.
The retailers had been joined to the application because they buy from Drake and should the order be granted, “there will be legal and commercial implications for them,” Naidoo said.
Naidoo said design houses, such as Drake, had “interposed themselves” between the retailers and manufacturers.
In doing so, they had circumvented the provisions of the council’s main collective agreement, which governs the clothing manufacturing industry, and the Labour Relations Act (LRA), whilst appearing to be law-abiding entities to secure orders from the retailers, she said.
It did this by claiming it was a “design house”.
But the council’s investigations and on-site inspections — conducted with SARS officials, immigration offers, and the police — showed that it was using sham co-operatives as a front.
“It knowingly conducts its business this way to avoid costs that enable it to procure supplies at markedly cheaper prices to obtain an unfair competitive advantage over compliant manufacturers in order to secure sales with major clothing retailers,” said Naidoo.
Naidoo said the council had attempted, over two years, to ensure the company was compliant with the main agreement, but it had been “consistently evasive and obstructive”.
Finally, in December 2025, Drake registered with the council but remained in breach of its obligations, including the registration of its employees.
Naidoo said an inspection of Drake’s premises uncovered a “sham” co-operative, KJN Clothing Primary Workers Co-Operative Limited.
It had been established that workers were not registered with the council and were being paid R1,579 a week, not the required R1,817.65.
A later inspection uncovered a factory, JinPeng Textiles, on the same premises, where employees were not given pay slips, just a “piece of paper”.
Naidoo set out details of other Chinese-owned manufacturers Drake had dealings with, many of them in Newcastle. None were registered with the council, she said.
At one, which employed 111 workers, when council agents entered, employees were seen fleeing the factory in fear of arrest for being in the country illegally.
The agents reported that workers were being paid between R90 and R120 per day, with no overtime, and were working more than 8.5 hours per day.
At another, trimmers were paid 20 to 30 cents per piece of clothing, and employees who did not meet their production targets were paid R70 a day.
At another co-operative, the workers worked seven days a week.They were not certain of their earnings because their wages fluctuated between R350 and R700 per week, including overtime.
The workers said anyone who queried what they were being paid would be dismissed.
During another inspection, agents noted that workers were “forced to live together in what can only be described as inhumane conditions”.
“The outbuilding contained what appears to be makeshift platforms arranged in two long rows of bunk beds akin to an overcrowded prison with each ‘bedroom’ separated only by hanging sheets in extremely confined conditions with little light, poor ventilation and no privacy,” Naidoo said.
While the council had taken action against all of the factories, issuing compliance letters and obtaining arbitration awards, none had complied.
Naidoo said it was evident that there was a “chronic issue” with non-compliance in the industry, and vulnerable employees were being exploited.
“The co-operatives Drake Clothing has trading relationships with are not operating as genuine co-operatives but as sham fronts. It is inconceivable that Drake is unaware of this.”
“The very point of industry-wide main agreements is to level the playing field while ensuring that employees are provided with adequate wages and other employee benefits,” Naidoo said.
“Every day that this business is permitted to operate unlawfully is a continuation of the violation of employees’ constitutional rights to human dignity, freedom and fair labour practices.”
“A liquidator needs to be appointed without delay to halt these unlawful practices and to ascertain the extent of the illegal operations.”
Attorney Michael Maeso, who represents Drake, said the company would oppose the application “which has no merit and is ill conceived”.
“Unfortunately, the Bargaining Council has a habit of accusing every co-op of being illegitimate without proof to justify the claim. The point is that the law allows co-ops to operate in South Africa independently of the Bargaining Council’s jurisdiction.”
Mr Price declined to comment, saying it is studying the court papers.
Pepkor said it treated allegations of this nature with the utmost seriousness.
“We will be investigating the matter internally. In addition, we will fulfil any obligations arising from the legal process to ensure that any required corrective actions are carefully considered and implemented with appropriate urgency and diligence.”
“Pepkor requires suppliers to comply with the group’s supplier code of conduct and remains committed to supporting fair and responsible local sourcing,” it said.
James Wilkinson, for The Foschini Group (TFG), said the company “takes allegations of labour rights violations extremely seriously”.
Suppliers are contractually required to adhere to a code of conduct. Manufacturing sites have to be declared and those sites are regularly monitored.
“We are currently reviewing the allegations contained in the court papers and assessing the status of any manufacturing sites linked to this matter and whether all applicable legal and regulatory requirements are being met,” said Wilkinson.
Appropriate action will be taken if non-compliance is found, he said.
This article was originally published on GroundUp.
© 2026 GroundUp. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.