A former employee of the Oppenheimers, Daryl Chetty, told the Equality Court on Friday that he was unfairly dismissed and called stupid by a senior executive at a company founded by billionaire businessman and conservationist Jonathan Oppenheimer.
But Chetty, who worked as an IT specialist for the Oppenheimer Partners Africa Advisors from March 2019 until he was fired at the end of May 2021, got his case referred to the Labour Court on the grounds of jurisdiction.
Among the respondents, Chetty listed Jonathan, who is the former executive of De Beers and ex-vice-president of Anglo-American Corporation, as the second respondent.
He claims he was unfairly dismissed in 2021, induced into signing a settlement agreement terminating his employment, and intimidated by the directors and partners of the company.
The crux of Chetty’s allegations is that he says he was referred to as “idiot” by one of the company’s 23 directors and was not offered protection by other directors.
He said that on May 11, 2021, the parties concluded and signed a settlement agreement terminating his employment relationship with effect from May 31, 2021.
However, on June 6 this year, Chetty initiated the Equality Court proceedings.
In the papers, Chetty alleges the company’s senior executive Modise Madondo, for no apparent reason, used vulgar language against him and called him an idiot.
According to Chetty, when he reported Madondo’s conduct to the UK-based Oppenheimer Partners Limited, the company failed to act.
In their defence, Oppenheimer Partners told the Equality Court that it did not have jurisdiction to hear a labour matter, and the court agreed with it.
“It should be noted that the Equality Court is a creature of statute and has only the jurisdictional powers that are conferred upon it by the legislation that created it. It does not have any discretionary powers with regard to its jurisdiction,” Judge Mpostoli Twala found.
“It therefore does not lie in the mouth of the applicant that litigants have been waiting for years for their matters to be heard in the labour court, and as such, it is expedient for his matter to be heard by this court.
“This is tantamount to bypassing the dispute resolution mechanism provided for in the Labour Relations Act and would inevitably result in litigants being involved in forum shopping, which should be discouraged,” said Twala.
He said the conduct Chetty complained about occurred at the workplace, which falls within the ambit of the Employment Equity Act.
“The unavoidable conclusion is that this court does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate matters that fall within the purview of the Employment Equity Act and the Labour Relations Act.”
