Competition Commission refers Pailpac to Tribunal for prosecution

The Commission sought an order that Pailpac’s exclusive agreements with paints manufacturers contravenes the Act. File picture

The Commission sought an order that Pailpac’s exclusive agreements with paints manufacturers contravenes the Act. File picture

Published Jun 27, 2024

Share

THE Competition Commission has referred Pailpac to the Competition Tribunal for prosecution for the alleged abuse of dominance in contravention of the Competition Act.

The commission said that Pailpac entered into exclusive agreements which required or induced certain major paint manufacturers not to deal with the company’s market competitors for the supply of injection moulded plastic containers used for the packaging of water-based paints.

It said in a statement yesterday that its conduct breached the Competition Act, which prohibits a dominant firm from engaging in anti-competitive conduct which has the effect of excluding its competitors from the market.

Pailpac is a manufacturer of injection moulded thick-walled and wide-mouthed plastic packaging, also known as pails or buckets, which are supplied to paints/coatings manufacturers in South Africa.

The injection moulded plastic containers are a critical input at the downstream level for the manufacture and supply of paints and are specifically used as packaging material or containers in the coatings industry. The specific plastic containers that are the subject of the complaint referral are those used for the packaging of water-based paints.

The commission alleged that Pailpac concluded supply agreements which contained exclusivity clauses with six major paints manufacturers, requiring these manufacturers to procure a majority or the entirety of their supplies of containers for the packaging of water-based coatings exclusively from Pailpac. The six major paints manufacturers were Plascon, Dulux, Prominent Paints, Universal Coatings and Laminin Coatings.

The commission said it sought an order that Pailpac’s exclusive agreements with paints manufacturers contravened the act, that the exclusivity provisions of the relevant supply agreements be declared null and void, and that Pailpac was liable for the payment of an administrative penalty equal to 10% of its annual turnover in the country.

BUSINESS REPORT