Premier
Question by:
Hon Marius Fransman
Answered by:
Hon Helen Zille
Question Number:
8
Question Body:
- What was the outcome of the Premier’s Social Transformation Programme [STP] court case;
- whether there was a judgement; if so, what was it;
- whether it was a settlement; if so, [a] was it an order of court or an out of court settlement, [b] what are the details of the settlement, [c] what was the total cost if any employee had to be paid out as a result of the settlement or judgement, [d] how many officials had to be paid out, [e] what is the status of payment made to all affected official;
- whether other more viable and cost efficient options other than ending the contract, such as transfers to other departments or units until such time as the contract of the officials had ended, were investigated; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;
- how many employees of the STP were [a] investigated, [b] charged and [c] found guilty of any disciplinary violation since 2009 until the end of their contracts?
Answer Body:
[1] The application for review of the arbitration award was dismissed with costs.
[2] Yes.
- The contracts provided for automatic termination at one month’s notice, as follows:
- Clause 5.1, dealing with the duration of the contract, stated that the clause specifying the duration of the contract “is to be read in conjunction with paragraph 9 in the event of the Social Transformation Programme [STP] being terminated prior to 31 July 2011 or the re-allocation of the work function.”
- Clause 9.1 stated that “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in clause 5.1 herein contained, either party to this Agreement may terminate it at any time during the currency thereof on giving one month’s notice in writing to the other party.”
- Based on its interpretation of these clauses, the Department was of the view that the contracts could be terminated by giving at least one month’s notice.
- However, the Labour Court held that section 186 of the Labour Relations Act was applicable, and that the termination of the contracts constituted dismissal. The Court further held that the requirements for procedurally and substantively fair dismissal had not been met.
- The outcome was that Court dismissed the Department’s application to review and set aside the award made by the CCMA commissioner. The Department did not appeal the judgment.
- Compensation in the amount of ten months’ salary per dismissed employee and one week severance pay together with costs were granted against the Department.
[3] No
[4] The Department considered alternative placement options for the thirteen affected STP employees. The curriculums vitae of all the affected staff were circulated under cover of a formal letter to all HR Directors and Heads of Department for placement consideration within the line departments. Despite the appeal, no suitable placement could be found.
[5] I am informed that our records reflect that no formal disciplinary action was taken against any of the STP employees. The ending of the contracts was not part of a disciplinary process.
Date:
Friday, September 12, 2014
