Former Msunduzi Local Municipality’s internal audit manager Rajendra Govender insists that his fight for justice is still alive even after the Labour Court in Durban granted him a R134 000 consolation prize earlier this year for procedural flaws in his axing, but the dismissal stuck.
Govender, a former airport manager before turning internal audit manager at the Pietermaritzburg-based municipality, says he has spent years fighting to clear his name after being dismissed in 2015.
His story is one of professional turmoil, personal struggle, and a legal battle that culminated in a Labour Court ruling in March this year, upholding his dismissal.
While the court acknowledged procedural flaws in his termination, it ultimately agreed with the arbitrator’s decision that the dismissal was substantively fair.
Speaking to Sunday World this week, Govender still disagrees. “Not a shred of evidence was presented by the municipality to support the claim that I had absconded … The burden of proof was on them, and they never proved it.
“My constitutional right was broken. I was charged with one thing, but I was convicted of another thing. That is a constitutional breach of my rights.”
Govender’s troubles began in 2005 when he was transferred from his position as airport manager at Oribi Airport to the role of manager of internal audit: performance management and statutory compliance in the Msunduzi Local Municipality.
According to Govender: “The transfer was the result of political turmoil at the airport, and he was unqualified for the new position.”
Despite this, he remained in the role for nearly a decade, during which time he repeatedly expressed dissatisfaction with his placement and requested his old job back.
The situation reached a boiling point in 2013 when Govender was “accused of being absent from work for extended periods without authorisation”.
Govender, however, maintained that he was “physically present at work every day”, even though he admitted he did not perform any internal audit duties.
He argued he was not qualified for the role and had informed the human resources department of the fact.
Govender said his relationship with his supervisors was fraught with tension.
He claimed that his manager, PJ Mahlaba, refused to acknowledge his presence at work, removed him from his workstation without notice, and even declined to sign his car allowance forms, causing him financial loss.
He also alleged that he was “instructed to report his presence to the personal assistant of his manager, rather than directly to his supervisors, which he found humiliating”.
After his dismissal in May 2015, Govender referred an unfair dismissal dispute to the South African Local Government Bargaining Council.
The case was heard by an arbitrator, who found that Govender’s dismissal was substantively fair but procedurally unfair.
The arbitrator noted that Govender’s refusal to perform his duties was not due to a lack of qualifications, as his CV indicated he had the necessary skills and competencies for the role.
Instead, the evidence suggested that Govender had simply refused to cooperate with his supervisors and had declined to perform tasks assigned to him.
Witnesses testified that Govender had been uncooperative, aggressive and unwilling to learn the skills required for his position.
Despite being given opportunities to familiarise himself with the tasks, he maintained that he was “too old to learn”.
However, recognising the procedural flaws in the dismissal process, the arbitrator ordered the municipality to pay him three months’ compensation amounting to R134 530.
Govender launched a review application in the Labour Court, arguing that “the arbitrator had misconceived the nature of the dispute and used flawed reasoning”.
He contended that the “arbitrator had erred in equating his failure to tender services with abscondment”.
The Labour Court, presided over by Acting Judge Nalini Govender, dismissed the review application.
The court found that the arbitrator had properly considered the evidence, appreciated the nature of the inquiry, and reached a reasonable conclusion.
The court noted that Govender’s defence – that he was physically present at work and therefore could not be accused of abscondment – was unconvincing.
The evidence showed that while he may have been physically present at the workplace, he had consistently refused to perform his duties.
The court agreed with the arbitrator’s finding that his refusal to perform his duties was the substantive issue and that his dismissal was justified.
