The National Economic Development and Labour Council (Nedlac) will meet again on Friday to discuss extensive labour law amendments published for comment in December, the labour department said on Thursday.

The meeting comes a day after the closure of public comments on the Labour Relations Act (LRA), Basic Conditions of Employment Act (BCEA), Employment Equity Act (EEA) as well as the Employment Services Bill, said deputy director-general for labour Les Kettledas.

"This meeting of the Nedlac task team will actually build on the first one which was held in January. The task team comprises members from Nedlac constituents from business, labour, government and the community," said Kettledas.

He said the Nedlac partners would meet until they reached a consensus.

"From Nedlac the bills may have to go back to Cabinet if there are any major changes. The intention however, is to table the bills in Parliament which will then decide on its own process," Kettledas said.

The four pieces of legislation have far-reaching implications, ranging from strict regulation of labour broking to the introduction of heavy penalties for firms that fail to meet equity targets.

They have been criticised by business, employment agencies and the political opposition as a disincentive to employment.

Analysts have said a provision creating the presumption that any job is permanent unless the employer can motivate why it should not be bucked international labour trends and would hamper job creation.

Thembinkosi Mkalipi, the Labour Department's chief director of labour relations, has conceded that strong opposition to the bills meant it that it would likely be many months before they are tabled in Parliament.

The Federation of Unions of South Africa (Fedusa) last month said it was "very concerned" about the low quality of proposed amendments on labour laws.

"When drafting legislation, it is absolutely essential for the text to be as clear and unambiguous as possible," Fedusa's chief negotiator on the proposed laws Leon Grobler.

He said dispute resolution agencies like the CCMA and courts were bound to respect the literal meaning of provisions and poorly drafted legislation would therefore "cause unnecessary and costly litigation in order to get clarity."