Suspect Commissions and Whistleblower Silencing

Update From Comrade Rian (response to all the comment on the trial):

This "whistleblower" case has been dismissed by the Labour Court Judge, who found that Janine was supposed to remain available (DAILY?) on the off chance that a date may be set during the exact month (more than a year after her dismissal) - when she had no phone and no money.

The date was set for August 2008, but the union lawyers could simply not find Janine (she was busy scraping together some cents to feed her children). The GCEO took full advantage of that unfortunate situation, and instructed Kobus Potgieter to file for dismissal of the matter, and to claim Janine is wasting the court's time. They refused to provide Janine's address, which they have, for tax purposes.

The papers (opposing affidavit by Janine herself) simply could NOT be filed without first FINDING Janine to do the affidavit!

It was, however, filed IMMEDIATLY when she was finally found, and it included an application for Condonation (an explanation why it was late) by Janine herself, in her opposing affidavit. The trial judge, however, clearly had little sympathy, or understanding, for Janine's explanation that she could not afford ANY phone calls, and therefore had NO way to know that the trial was (at short notice to the union) set for that date.

The case was dismissed with costs to be paid by the union (close to R100 000-00).

Two options remain:

1. The union can appeal this finding at Labour Appeal Court.

2. A case of criminal defamation can be opened against those who testified falsely at Janine's published hearing (Gab Mampone and Lene Chamberlain), as well as the person who published a falsehood in his "appeal finding" - Robin Nicholson.

3. The Constitutional collective interest of having fearless Shop Stewards can be mandated by all members, and in this way, we can force SABC to allow Janine her day in court, so the truth can be heard.

.....Comrades, that is what Rian reports to me. He has asked me to publish another voting button, so we can mandate Head Office with our way forward. Please vote!

Here is the original post:
Acting Plant Secretary reported: Flying in the face of a collective demand by union members, the Acting GCEO, Mr Gab Mampone, on Friday instructed lawyers not to allow Shop Steward Janine Murison her day in court.
The union awaited a trial date for a year and a half by the time a date was finally given. Unfortuntely, by that time, Janine had been forced by circumstances that no Fat Cat or High Court Judge will ever be able to grasp, to phone our lawyers on a less regular basis. The cost of a mobile phone call is a huge factor for someone who has nothing.Management and HR had full knowledge of her new address in Cape Town, but neglected to give that to our union lawyer - proof they wanted her to miss the date, so they can have this technicality to keep the matter out of court.When she finally found the meagre means to make contact with our lawyer again, she - to her utter dismay - heard that the case was to be dismissed. Only then could our lawyers file opposing argument to management's dismissal application - which he did, but technically it was already too 5 days too late.Many compassionate judges, however, grant condonation in such cases, so the union decided to oppose (at its own cost) the SABC's nasty and unfair application to dismiss, even if the chance was small. We still owed that to Janine.The merits of her case (prospects of success) was described as "good" by the advocate, but the judge refused to entertain that.The written judgement will be provided in this week. If it can be appealed to a more understanding judge, it will - after an investigation into the prima facie fraudulent commission scheme has been concluded, so the fact that Janine believed the fraud was real, can be proven.This now provides a small legal window of opportunity for the criminal matter of commission fraud to be publicly investigated, as it is not currently SUB JUDICE.Gab Mampone, Robin Nicholson and Toni Burkett, along with Mark Jakins, Paul Tati and Lene Chamberlain, are the architects and benefactors of the commission scheme in question. At a General Meeting with all members a 16:30, the following mandate was given.That the union demands from SABC that the six individuals mentioned supra, be suspended and investigated for:1. Fraud concerning a secretive commission scheme,2. Vague commission statements,3. Incorrect and unilateral application of the banking system,4. Refusing to clarify issues of payment,5. Paying monies into a secret SABC account number, contained in Janine Murison's founding affidavit6. The exhorbitant commissions paid to the CE: Commercial Enterprises, the CFO, and the GM: Sales and Marketing Finance, when compared to other support staff commissions.The demands will be communicated to the Board Chairperson via the Company Secretary's office on Tuesday, with a condition that the collective mutual interest demand is met by close of business that same day, failing which the matter will be referred to the CCMA for mediation. The members have indicated that they are ready to defend that demand.We will prevail, comrades, and we are - together - much more effective and stronger than court, which to protects itself against any possibility of actually having to decide on the merits of a case.It would seem the message these courts send out, is that companies have Carte Blanche to illegally dismiss wistleblowers with impunity.What they do not know, is that the power of the collective will always prevail - no matter how powerful some managers think they are.