CAF president Patrice Motsepe’s mining company has shown the CCMA the middle finger when it failed to appear before the labour dispute resolution centre for a case of unfair medical retrenchment after it laid off its bodyguard, who sustained injuries in a nightclub brawl while protecting the billionaire’s son.
African Rainbow Minerals (ARM) cocked a snook at the CCMA’s instruction to appear before a commissioner in Johannesburg on February 14 to justify its decision to retrench Albert Muleya, who fractured his thumb while protecting Motsepe’s son Kabelo in a fight that broke out in Hi-Grow Cafe nightclub in Hatfield, Pretoria.
As a result of ARM’s defiance, the CCMA referred Muleya’s case to the Labour Court for trial.
The news that Motsepe’s company gave the CMMA the bird is contained in the papers Muleya filed in the Labour Court, where he is seeking relief for his unfair medical retrenchment.
In the court papers we have seen, Muleya, who started working for ARM on November 11, 2012, as a reaction unit security officer, said he broke his right thumb at the joint on April 30, 2021, while trying to protect Kabelo. Muleya stated that he wanted to press criminal charges against the outlet and sue it for his injuries but was prohibited from doing so by ARM.
“The applicant underwent surgery and physiotherapy, during which period the applicant was placed on special leave by the respondent,” read the papers.
Muleya said ARM had initially accommodated him to perform light duty activities for the months of August and September 2021 following his return to work after his doctor declared him medically fit to do so.
He said ARM informed him on October 1, 2021, to return to normal duties and threatened to consider him for medical retrenchment.
“The applicant returned to normal duty in October 2021 until April 2022, when the persistent pain in his right thumb, specifically during night shifts, caused the applicant to request to be placed on day shifts,” read the papers.
However, ARM refused to accede to Muleya’s request and asked him to first seek medical advice. Muleya stated that he also applied for alternative jobs advertised by the company but was overlooked despite possessing the necessary qualifications.
“The applicant’s doctor again recommended light duty, and the applicant received further physiotherapy until August 2022. The applicant was on normal duty between September 2022 and February 2023 when the pain in his right thumb became so severe that the applicant again referred the matter to the human resources department of the respondent. The applicant was referred to an occupational therapist (OT), who advised that the applicant would have to be placed on permanent light duty,” read papers.
ARM turned a blind eye to the OT’s advice, and insisted on Muleya continuing to perform the normal duties. “The respondent refused to comply with this recommendation of the OT, and the applicant referred a dispute to the CCMA on June 31, 2023.
“A settlement was reached on July 31, 2023, wherein the respondent agreed to retain the applicant on light duty while considering suitable vacancies to accommodate the applicant.
“On September 29, 2023, the respondent received a letter of retrenchment from the respondent advising that despite consultations on August 18, 2023, September 7, 2023 and September 20, 2023, no alternative to retrenchment was viable,” read the papers.
Motsepe’s company paid
Muleya, who was earning over R37 000 per month, a severance package of R163 338.
“Following his dismissal, the applicant referred a Section 189 unfair dismissal dispute to the CCMA, and the matter was referred for conciliation on
November 15, 2023.”
Muleya said the CCMA commissioner, Pitsi Maisha, referred the matter to arbitration.
“The arbitration notice was sent by the CCMA on January 15, 2024, setting the matter down for February 14, 2024.
“On February 14, 2024, the respondent failed to appear at the arbitration hearing. The commissioner ruled that the matter should be referred to the Labour Court despite the applicant being the only person retrenched.”
Muleya said his dismissal was procedurally and substantively unfair. He is demanding his job back or appropriate compensation. He said since filing the case in court in March, a date for trial had not yet been allocated.
“My lawyer said the company’s lawyer needs a second pre-trial meeting, and she cannot proceed before having such a pre-trial meeting for the second time,” he said.
Visit SW YouTube Channel for our video content
