The complaints relate to parents who are forced to buy uniforms from handpicked single suppliers. With schools set to reopen next week, the sale of uniforms and their prices have come under sharp focus as hardpressed parents raise complaints of cost and preference with limited options.. In 2021, the Competition Tribunal ruled that schools could no longer compel parents to buy uniforms from a specific supplier. The tribunal also ruled against the anticompetitive practice, scraping exclusive deals and calling for school uniforms to be as generic as possible such that it is obtainable from more than one supplier. The commission is empowered by the Competition Act to penalise entities who contravene the ruling but no supplier or school has faced any fines yet. Of the 220 complaints received by the commission, 60 are from Gauteng, 35 from KwaZuluNatal while the rest come from other provinces. The majority of the complaints were from private schools with only a few from the public schools, the commission's spokesperson Siya Makunga told Sowetan yesterday. Makunga said the commission had opted for an advocacy approach in dealing with these cases. "We engaged directly with schools and managed to resolve some of the complaints. For the schools that we could not engage because they could not be reached, we engaged the provincial departments and district. "The advocacy approach is what the commission has opted for in appreciation of the nature of the sector, whose main focus should be teaching and training," he said. He added that the commission had powers to prosecute or fine schools contravening the act. "The penalties can be up to 10% of a firm's school's annual turnover. The Competition Commission decided to take an advocacy approach to educate schools and suppliers of school uniforms about the guidelines and the possible anticompetitive effects of longterm, exclusive agreements." He said the commission had entered into a settlement agreement with two of the largest suppliers of school uniforms in the country, GRIT Procurement Solutions, partly owned by Curro Group, and McCullagh and Bothwell Hyde Park Pty Ltd. The settlement states that they will only contract with schools following a competitive process and that any contract entered into the supply of school uniform items will be for a duration of not more than five years. Makunga said the commission would, from now going forward, prosecute and penalise schools that ignore the guidelines and act in a manner that contravenes the competition act. " To ensure that suppliers do not repeat the same misconducts1 the Competition Commission does from timetotime conduct surveys to assess compliance in the market. Since the commission has not prosecuted any supplier, but rather engaged in advocacy programmes, any supplier that ignores the guidelines will be prosecuted." General Secretary for the National Assosiation of School governing bodies Matakanye Matakanya said the organisation was continuously engaging SGB's to ensure that they adhere to the guideline. He said the organisation had found that some SGBs were influenced by individuals who did not want the evergreen contracts to change for their benefit. "We are working with the competition commission, if SGB does not listen to us we give the matter the commission to investigate." The South African Human Rights Commission's Eileen Carter said they were awaiting the department of education's response to adopt their recommendations to cap the price of basic school uniform. The department is expected to respond in April. Sowetan has seen a letter from a Johannesburg private school that continues to enlist only one supplier for its summer and winter school uniform including sports gear. A parent at the school told Sowetan she had spent over R13,000 for summer and winter uniforms as well as sports gear for her grade I child. "That was not even everything," she said. A sleeveless pullover with the school's logo cost the parent nearly R300 while navy pants were R447 each.

Source: Sowetan