The ACDP in Ekurhuleni welcomes the Labour Appeal Court’s ruling that the Ekurhuleni municipal official who sexually harassed a woman should be dismissed from his job.
The party said residents of the City deserve to be treated with respect and professionalism at all times and that sexual harassment by public officials is a damaging form of corruption.
“We commend the brave woman who reported a municipal official who harassed her when she went to book for a learner driver’s licence test and when she went to take it. Had she kept quiet, others would still be subjected to his harassment,” said ACDP.
Vindicated
The City of Ekurhuleni confirmed the official, who was stationed at the Benoni Licensing Department, was fired after a disciplinary hearing for sexual harassment, but he made several attempts to be reinstated.
Metro spokesperson Zweli Dlamini explained that after the dismissal, the employee lodged a dispute with the South African Local Government Bargaining Council (SALGBC) that went to arbitration to settle the dispute.
The municipality then launched a review application to the Labour Court against the award issued by SALGBC. After the non-success of the review application, the municipality filed an appeal to the Labour Appeal Court against the judgment of the Labour Court, and the Labour Appeal Court has ruled in favour of the municipality, thus vindicating the initial decision to dismiss the person.
Dismissal substantially fair
GroundUp reported that the municipal employee harassed the victim when she came to book her learner driver’s licence driving test in 2015 and again when she came to write it months later.
Acting Labour Appeal Court judge Kate Savage, along with judges Dennis Davis and Elizabeth Kubushi, presided over a matter brought to the court by the metro that had fired Justinus
Mabetoa following a disciplinary hearing in which he was found to have committed two acts of sexual harassment.
ALSO READ:A voice for younger victims of sexual violence
The victim reported that on the first occasion, the official had suggested he would take down her number and made sexual remarks, such as “I look like I taste nice in bed”. She said she was shocked but decided to ignore this.
But when she returned to write her test, Mabetoa again made sexual remarks, suggesting he would go to her home, and when he took her fingerprints he rubbed her hand in an “uncomfortable way”.
Aggrieved at being dismissed, Mabetoa referred an unfair dismissal dispute to the SALGBC.
The arbitrator found it was probable that Mabetoa was guilty of sexual harassment, but said firing him was too harsh.
Mabetoa’s dismissal was ruled to be substantially unfair and was replaced with a final written warning.
The municipality then took this decision on review to the Labour Court, which ruled the complainant’s version ‘did not make any sense and barely constituted evidence establishing guilt’.
Referring to the fact that the complainant had not reported the first incident, the court said it was “unthinkable” that if she was so shocked, she could so easily let it slide and do nothing about it.
The Labour Court ordered that Mabetoa be reinstated.
But the municipality was not happy and took this decision on review to the Labour Appeal Court.
Judge Savage, in finding that Mabetoa’s dismissal was substantially fair, took issue with the way the Labour Court had handled the case. She said the court had handled the matter more as an appeal than a review.
It had not been taken into account that the woman’s account was not challenged by Mabetoa in cross-examination before the bargaining council.
Even in his evidence, Mabetoa had admitted he had made some comments to her.
“The discrepancies in her evidence were not of such a nature as to warrant the wholesale rejection of it,” Savage said.
She said the Labour Court had questioned why the complainant had not approached a different official to help her on the second occasion.
Savage said: “This was without regard to the fact that she was entitled to access public services without having her rights violated, and there was no obligation on her to seek out a different official to serve her to safeguard her rights.
“In undertaking its task in the manner that it did, the Labour Court only further contributed to her indignity.”
Read the original article by GroundUp’s Tania Broughton at www.groundup.org.za/article/sex-pest-must-be-fired-labour-appeal-court-rules/
ALSO READ: The growing list of powerful Hollywood men accused of sexual misconduct
