KwaZulu-Natal’s Durban University of Technology (DUT) lost its bid to overturn a Commission for Conciliation, Mediation, and Arbitration (CCMA) ruling that reinstated an employee it had unfairly fired in June 2021.
After the CCMA ruled that Lunga Khumalo, a branch chairperson of the National Education, Health, and Allied Workers Union (Nehawu) who also worked for DUT as a desktop practitioner in the IT department, was unfairly dismissed and should be reinstated and paid part of the legal fees he incurred while fighting the matter, the university took to the Labour Court in Durban.
The ruling was handed down on July 23 and emailed to all parties. It is not clear whether DUT will appeal the ruling or allow Khumalo to return to work as directed.
Genesis of the matter
It is believed that Khumalo’s troubles began when he exposed suspected acts of corruption within the institution. The search for information that could be used to nail him ensued.
When Khumalo mistakenly claimed to have signed the Labour Court papers — on a separate matter — indicating his employment as a legal officer by Nehawu, the university found a point of contention.
It pounced on him and charged him with perjury, saying he should have stated that he was employed by DUT, not the labour union where he held a position.
During an internal hearing, Khumalo admitted that there was an error and it was a mistake, as the affidavit he signed was prepared by his lawyer.
He further argued that he only focused on the core arguments of the affidavit.
Honest mistake
Even under cross-examination, Khumalo was able to convey to the commissioner that it was an honest mistake, and his version was accepted as credible.
The CCMA commissioner who presided over the matter called the charge of perjury laid by DUT against Khumalo “ridiculous”, and the Labour Court upheld the judgment and added that the charge was “patently groundless”.
In its attempt to prove its case against Khumalo, DUT called Augustine Msomi, its acting senior director of human capital services, to testify and bolster its case.
The court found that Msomi could point to no direct evidence to substantiate his belief that Khumalo’s misstatement had been deliberate.
Under cross-examination, Msomi refused to accept that such a statement had been nothing more than an error.
