HR AVOIDING ANSWERING TO CHARGES - RSSC

MBABANE - RSSC says its Group Human Resources Manager, who has been charged with sexual harassment of a subordinate employee, is avoiding answering to his charges.

Max Bonginkhosi Mkhonta has also been charged with gross inappropriate and unbecoming behaviour for a manager of his status, abuse of his position of authority as a senior manager and acting in a manner contrary to the company’s code of ethics.

Royal Swaziland Sugar Corporation (RSSC) Company Secretary Lungile Masango said the disciplinary proceedings against Mkhonta were instituted six months ago and he allegedly avoids answering to the charges.

According to Masango, Mkhonta, who allegedly sexually harassed a female staff member who reports to him, raises one technical point after another during his ongoing disciplinary hearing.

The veracity of these allegations is still to be tested in court. RSSC is represented by Magagula and Hlophe Attorneys.
When the disciplinary proceedings were instituted against him, Mkhonta moved an application in court against RSSC for the removal of the chairman of his disciplinary hearing and for the process to be re-evaluated before a new chairperson.

The court ruled in his favour. RSSC filed a review of the decision at the High Court and it will be heard in July 2019.

Hearing

RSSC proceeded with the hearing and Mkhonta rushed to court again when it was at the stage where he was supposed to give evidence. His accuser has given her evidence before the new chairperson.

Mkhonta has now filed an urgent application at the High Court for the new chairman of the hearing to be interdicted from proceeding with the hearing pending finalisation of the matter whereby he wants the chairman to give him a written ruling and reasons for dismissing the objections he raised in the on-going hearing.
Responding to Mkhonta’s application, Masango submitted that the chairperson stated that he would avail the written reasons in due course.

She said the human resources manager assumed that he could raise technicalities if there were rulings not in his favour and run to court for review. She said Mkhonta’s approach was misguided.

Masango told the court that Mkhonta did not have a primary right to approach the court in incomplete disciplinary proceedings since the employer has a prerogative to discipline its employees.

She said courts did not intervene in the employer’s exercise of its prerogative unless exceptional circumstances exist.  The company secretary informed the court that Mkhonta has allegedly not established any exceptional circumstances for him to approach the court.

The High Court, according to Masango, does not have jurisdiction to hear the matter, because the Industrial Relations Act gives exclusive jurisdiction to the Industrial Court to determine matters between employers and employees in the course of employment.
Masango also stated that Mkhonta did not exhaust internal remedies before approaching the court. She said the human resources manager reports to the managing director, who is technically the initiator.

Satisfied

She explained that if Mkhonta was not satisfied with any decision made by the chairperson of the hearing, he has a right of appeal to the next level of authority, the Board of Directors. She said as a result, Mkhonta was in court prematurely.

“This means that an employee aggrieved by a decision made in the course of a disciplinary process can have that decision reviewed by the high authority within the company,” said Masango.

Mkhonta submitted that the ruling was verbally communicated to him by the chairman on April 23, 2019. Mkhonta submitted that he requires the written reasons for purposes of filing a review application in respect of that ruling.

Post your comment

Your name:

Your e-mail address:

Add your comments:

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Image:

Code: