‘RUTHE DOSCIPLINARY INQUIRY HELD ATEANBTOR: fn de meter benweea: hi ase onsen the spiny bei even the Seah Aten Reverse of Serviess (the employer") and Mr Jonas Meshud Msterelowe Che empiayss"), 1.2 The exsplcyar ins proffered whi (6) eHlegations of miscoutact charges cogeinat ths exaployes, ES Tho hearing wes held on 27 aud 28 July 2007 and apats on 15 August mi.Pege2 wf 60 2 BRIEF RACKGROUND PACTS at as (On 15 Septesnber 2016, the exployer varved the employes with # notion of euspecsion, This wer eebrequent to the employer ianioning a fnvengetios arom the Finacial Tatligence Cente report dated 17 May 2016 ("FIC epee. ‘Thos FIC report uncovered wit le terms “seventy five (95) suspictous end ‘taunt cack dapcits end payments” used into the employes's lent exon, ‘Though not diet relevent ix thess proceodiage end for purposes of sompleness, I mist mention thet the employee soussiod t Go -saspencton lat hes since challeaged ke validity. That dispute bad bec reftrrsd t0 the COMA. ‘The tenas of fic camployee’s suspension ewe ax GoWOwe: “al you are hereby suspended for thirty (30) warking dae ‘with Jill poy and benefits, ponding the outcome of a ‘tevestigstion andor subsequent disctolinary bearing. 8) You resin bows by all SARS pellciee end procedures at * wall ar the SARE Code ef Conduct end all other applicable policies and procedures,Foge 3 of 6 Although your servicer may nat be required by SARS during your munpenaion period, you seed to be avellabte cand contactable by SARS. You are required to farsish SARS vith the adress exd contact detats of where yaur wilt rexide durbog your suspenston perl, D Yo need to obvain pormiiston fiom the SARS representative mentioned below before visiting any SARS Presises or camtacting SARS anpleyees dering working ‘ours end “am * (ouphesis sted 25 On 13 Ismemy 2017, the employee eookated Don Nantootat (CNannostsl") by way ofs telephare call end the employer desmed that tobse bresch of his nspension conditens. 26 The etaployer of 19 Jesuary 2017 served the enxployee with = charge sheet! Later emf on 12 June 2017, » consnlieted charge sheet wee served on the euployes, 34 Ths fallowing ore the churpes Get wore proffered opsinat dhe empioyee:Page dar ea “CHARGE I: BREACH OF SURFENSION CONDITIONS SLE a2 Bis Be (Os: 15 Septnasher 2016, you were placed on suspension. (One of ths earpension conditions goveulag your suspension iz Get yor Ge mt to conieot SARS employess without permsksiee fiom Mr Tebote Mokoom or Commlastones T Moyers, Ou ES Jomary 2017 you telephanislly coms? Dian ‘Nennoolat ond discasend © taxpayer ent « current active tx smaties, ‘Your conduct as wet out above fs fo beoash of your mcapesion, couditinns, (CHARGE 2: GROSS INSUBORDECATION 3s Os LY October 2016, you wore reninded ext instructed by ‘Million Mbuthe via exit not in pontzet nny SARE sxmployzes while peur seu on curpessien.WS 347 Page 5 of 60 otwisending thie ineostion, you again eontaoted « SARS eaployes on 15 January 2017 as filly cot ont in cbmage ano steve, ‘Your eondvot constitates grovs insubordination. CHARGE 3: FAILURE TO ACT IN THY: WEST INTEREST OF SARS ANB/OR FLACING SARS IN A POSITION TO BE SROUGHT INTO DIEREFUTE BLE BLD BIO ‘Your suspension and the sessomr that brought aboot your ‘stepsnston have been ths subject of wide motia covernge. ‘Nobwidisasting the medi sltention end your seslor position vwlthin SARS, you proceeded to conduct yourelf m set act in ‘charge one and two above. Ax yout ure aware or ought to be ‘ewe should your conduct a aforased becoms publically ‘vow, fs tre potential to place SARS ints disrepute. ‘Your condust ine potcatie! of putting SARS fume disrepate, CHARGE 4: ABUSE OF POSITION ANIVOR EXERCISING UNDUR INFLUENCE Shad ‘Tn contacting Neoanolal ns set out in barge 1, you caught wo Instruct exdlor direct and o¢ unduly tnfluenes Nessoolal in the peeformence of bis duties, Nansoblah Goes wot rept to you,Bada Sus Sa Bas Bde Page 6 of 60. ‘You hed no euthorityw dives, entrust or nSaanae Rescate je the performance of fds dnfies. Yeor conduct comttioites an abuse of yoor position as « sealer SARS employee, ander ‘cxticising influence on « SARS employee. ‘On or ubvut & Fabrony 2012 you were appainted as x direcine of Biz Phe Wasx (Pry) Linmtied, ‘You filed ts dianfoce 12 BARS, your appotainient ex director of Bis Flee Worn (Pay Linnited. 1a representations mas ax part of an investizetion yo ststeel ‘hat yor fred provited the director of Bs Flee Woex, Lobes ‘Moles, with Gnanciel eselsteace end eustegis finding, advice se plarning, ne woll ee capeevision of otal ‘Your conduct es aforemontinasd constives ¢ breach of the Interne! ties Policy well ot the Code of Cacsuce fs thet you teaewingly andlor deliberately aed of in ehowantamner where yon ongl to have known you were sequised to disalaserBAa7 3118 Page? of 60 S1d6.t falled to disclose your eppoiiment 25 director andlor direstoniip in Blz Pio Worm. ‘Your conduct es aforementioned constitaies « bresek of the ‘interned Ethins Polioy well ws the Code of Conduct tu thst you knowingly endior dstiberately andlor in chosmetences whee yea opght to keve inown you wen mqued t@ obs ‘permission: SMATE the to obits permtevion tm underisos eutse employment es required. Ia ection, given your scalor poaliton within SARS, your ‘conduct us afbrementionsd leo cousiitules conduct _nibecanning of « porn in your passion anivar dishonesty. (CHARGE 6: BREACH OF SARE INTERNAL ETHICS FOLICY- CONFLICT G5 INTEREST. FAILURE TO DECLARE IMMAOVABLE PROPERTY AND RENTAL INCOME AND/OR UNBECOMING CONDUCT AND/OR DIEBONESTY 2419 1s came af tee SARS Inteosel Hikioe Policy exe established eactice, you are naquired to disclose dotells of immovable property registered ia your meme and eny resuel inscose ‘escived ts respect thareat,Page fot 6 3.1.20 in-3012 you filled to doctor the flowing propesties; 31.201 38 Breokionds Ridgs 34.202 4 LevondarLane 3.4203 2195 Konnandel SUZ Yn 2012 you flied un dectere the fbllowing propssiess SLDLL FB Brooklands Ridge S212 4 Lavender Lane BAZLS 2198 Kosmoatel 3.122 1h 2013 you fled w decles the fallowing properties: 34221 2193 Kosenoatel S125 In 2088 you failed to decks the folowing prapeesees 21251 38 Brookdale Ridges 31232 4 Laventee Lene BA233 2103 KosmasielPago 9 of 3.1.24 lu ail the aforememtionsd yearn, you clay Selled to deatme rental Income recetved in respect off 4 Lawasier Lene, Semmunectield este. 3.1.25 Your conduct a slbvesald conetinstes © breack of policy endfor poodles snd given your senior postion within SARS ie ‘conduct axbscoming of & pereon to your pesitfon andlor sistouesty.” SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE 4.1 The exployer called four (6) witnesses. The explayes ie the only oxs ‘whe testified on bis behelf ALL Dion Nemsoolet 4db1 Be is « senior manages, High Velue Boforonment Unit, whiol iavotves the ecllection of high value ‘ceses ene Sipe, 4.11.2 On 15 Jnsumy 2087 ot acound 19652, be received s al Som ts exipoyoe,41.b3 ahh 41S Page 1060860, ‘Th ecoployes edvised him thet he bed recelved & call from Mr Rudesat Mukwevho CMekwevko"), ‘Rrgprerenattve of tis Mplenne fimtty, Mukwooho requested an urgent meeting with ‘Neanoolel. However, dove to the not that he was oa leave, ke contacted the employee, ‘The employee regumied that ba most with Bulswovto, ox the Miploane Ranally mended thelr ax lserence estou sued waited to setts thelr tex lapate wh SABE, The eapleyer ako entionad the fhet sat Muiowovho nidsed the qusstion of the ussesmnsat bavieig bom dors by PriseWetstkouseCoopen (PWC and not hy SARS, Further that if 1 were ‘owe, thet woold Lave been iegular wine uch eoaduct would be contary tm tho Tox Adesidotration Act,4127 4118 aL 414200 44401 ands Pope 11 of 60 ‘Ths employes wes awere tht he was on leave at ths time end he upolsgiced for distrbing him ‘Garing bs leave pated, ie doce net heve the power to agian wo sentenment ‘eprocontets andor oomepramives, ‘He apread wo the meeting end requested that it ust ‘be bid on Monday 16 Jemuney 2017 ot 11800, But for the employee's request, he would eve met ‘With Mukwavko dusfog the cous of that weok fier attending wo is ome xf Geelertatag ‘Bisel with the merits ofthe matter, Hie sort a vest meeaage 10 Vusl Ngguinans and sdvieed him thst he ied veseived « call Bose the ‘enpoyee bx reation fo ti: Mpinene restr, ‘Tho cnployes wdvised hi pot Jodo moving ‘meals: ths leer when desting with Mukwavhe.412 Page 12 of 60 4AL13 He eccoded oo the request beceuss the employes if ‘biz superior end be ben respect for bie, ewever, he was not pressured toto dolag making. £6. ating in u partiouter eny. Me Milian Mibetho 442d 422 Alas pier ie isan Enoployment Relations Gpeelatie, Re wes tabed with communicating with the exployse repunding kis sxypenslon snd the verlous ‘eurensions of the empsioyse's suspic, The exaployes xs suspended dum to elegations Iovelled geist kit emawsting from the FIC port, Om Ut Gotober 2016, he atdesced x email is ‘whieh be reminded the employer of his suspension, conitions, The email was sant & te exployee folfcwing the Commlsstonss's edvics ther the cesployse bed wttempied to contest Bis evel as.44a5 4128 aint 4h8 Fege 13 0860 ‘He bad fmther communications with the employes, ding hi suepenston, owing to the fist tat ke war fasted with handling the Lackay metier in which tee eamployer was e wlmness, ‘The exiployee eonuired whether ix responding to ‘Met's mesoages, woud ke rot be resting his sovditinns of muspension, ie edvised the employee on 26 of January 2017 by ‘wey Of & text mesiage thnt the employse wet not ‘teaching his suspension confitions when be commenicates wlth hina rgssilog tie Leckny smutter as dhs muir fs not rebated to te FIC rept Investigation. ‘Ths euptoyer hes working hours that ate publishes far office workore and they ars 7530 to 16450 end ‘the0 en 1700,4as Pope 140860 ‘Tebobo Miokoens ("Mohoens") 41st 41a A133 ALS 4138 ‘He tc employed ax the Chief OfSee, Haman (Ceph end Development, He war involved io assiotiag tha Cosuxissionsr, ‘Thomts Meyene in issuing the mopencion Othe Comentecinese'9, ‘Hoborame nware ofthe telephone eal meds by the enployic to Nemoolil whee be retuned fot leave, Hie was the fodividuel who wer teked with feetimtiog conmmuniceton becwess the earployes ead the employer, reguniioss of the tnt thatthe Commmissiowar in wisn bees named ox sks etine peron with whom tha suployes could ‘eoumeunstt, ‘The eanployes mover requested penaiefon fun ‘ties prior to cxmumuniesting with Noses,4138 4137 4138 Page 15 0f 60 1 permission hd ee requested fiom him pre is: ‘te exployes comumnicating with Nesnooha, he wenld have considered the eireuastenses of the cal, the bass of the requert end ifthe employes fs ts contact any of Bis colfesgnes specitiatly who wnight sve to deal with che relevant meters led is the request. Be wenld thee saske « ‘deteraiation 8s w whether or wot 19 coment th Jina enansper of the emelayes. 1 respons to tes question that ff eaked hl as to whether wae bis muorty to prast the eanphoyes (pemmitesion to speak lo SARS employees daring his saepencion was ouly linaited to ths ismuex stipulated ‘in the notice of ssepensios, be respond tt the «dfiemative ‘This issue wes ceptored by de ernpinyer’s fogs] ‘represeatetive in on ettempt to oleify his respouse te the question thel I hed asked him. He confined ‘the corvectmens of the seeponte that he hued given. ‘He eter changed his enswer when the kw war explored FrtheFags Bat 6 4139 With regu wo the employees exmpenstos, it was decided thet the eneployee be placed en exepension fle having considered the seriousncin of the dlegatione that hud been reised egatast him sx weve being tnvestigetod. The employer wea further {eided by Discpliouy Code and Prossdare Polley ‘peovistons dealing with suspensions S1SAG He wee eked sBout the limitation thet is insod by paragraph (6) of the nntice of suspension, Le. he one that relies (0 the workings hours. Hit esponnte wnt thet: "URMOKORS: Pleat 4,1 do not thing thes swwrealistteHoitatlon becmare working keurs difer fro wa expect of ee aperation ta the other.” 414 Ms Tmneta Falth Gopane (Gopene"} 414A She emannyer, integrity Comnplimece Officer, 414.2 She ie regpbestohe for massing secasisy vet, snd ounfte uf interest at SARS,Page 17060 4443 Al SARS employese are required fo declare all ‘hake private latoret om ax cuts beste between ‘the period of Axeil snd May, The employees ee farther required & epply for permission 1 they ‘wish to contact wotk outside of SARS, 4144 Employees are required to declare alt thtr chases, directorship end partnerships & sccordenee with the Ethics Potisy. 4145 She was token thragh the desleratlos 06 page 79 Of bandlc A and the fllowing wes her testiecony: 43.4.5, She printed the document om 28 of October 206 ster she bad been requested by ransegement os i weu relevent to an ongoing tavestigatas, 4,145.2 The devlartion of Apetl 2011, for purposes ‘OF Gr under pecpsty, only refers to Centurion. Ih.dves not provide the details theceat!Page 18 of 6 ALASS The propane vinats at $8 Brooklyn's Ridge, 4 Lavender Lane end 2193 Rosmomist were not fic is the dectareiow fomn sdsntnod on 7 Bavember 2012, 41ASA No propenty tas Sonn fs the decteestion {orm aubaltied 0226 Apri 2023, 4165.5 Wo poopesty ous fread in the desketion foes ated om t paid 2014, 4.1456 No reatel income weu dotlered for ths year: 2082 aa 2013, 4146 ‘Thu eraployee did not cbtela any epprovel tom the cenployer for any et remneztion. 4tA7 IE the comployes bad previously deolered propony nx ceria yosr, hat property will remain i dhe syste hooraver, under the profile of tht specttic Year ia which i wes destured,asa 414g Page 19 of 60 ‘The system requims employees «6 anuwelly elthor ‘update the onisting decterntion, export the existing: decluation ar to ereste anew eclasetiog, ‘The eamaner in which docierations fs dase fs not ‘Preseralby the potioy, Howeves, i ie arate that exists by vite of the system used by the employer. | 44410 Ho sction war teker agsinat employsce thet bed proviously not declared. 415 Mr Jonns Makwakwe Chskwskswe") AAS 4152 He fy the Chief Olen, Bunitese and Individual ‘Tenes and hea been in ths employ of SARE foe 8 period of twenty-two (22) yearn, He Sint niet the Mplasne fexally im Merch 2009 wher he fd bean deployed to KweZiaha Nita! to provide executive ledorchis.4b 4A SA 41ss 4156 Page 200860 othe yeor 2017, he ware witness forbs employer in diopate i ed paleo the Mpleane fmf. His batiover bo war expended beceuse (he BIC seport heel wide medic coverage esd thus bin ‘conilaued presence would comes wmnoseary bares or attentios tothe employer. From the reading of bls notice of suspension, be ‘Was not permitied to ooutect aod or usccey tho coployors offices dering working hours witha, obtelaing permiazion, ‘His macs & tefephows cali to Nemoalal efter be received & cell Guan the taxpayer’ repreccatative, ‘Mokwevho, whe sciviced him tut be hed ben tying toma oom with the eployer garde the Mpleene matter. Mukwevho sivised bie thet te urgendy needed te mest representatives of the sanployer for the following reasvas: 4156.1 The Mpisane Sanity unpsatly nsedod their x leerenne certificate,Pogo 21 of 60 4.15.62 The matter was set down in esent for the need Tuesdsy end Mukwevhs was ewars of the: PWC sepa tmgeter with the proton aemcisted therewith, 41.563 The Mpleens family wanted to stile the matter with the employer prior to the ‘schedisted count dete sad thie ie the reason that ‘dus meeting had to occur ox Motitsy, 41ST We did nol think he wer breaching his suspension sossitions when Be sostatied Nannoolal ex the Inter ors oe Jeave, Lo, thus “working hours” wore not epptleabie. 4152 When 0 matter je tho aubject of Higstiog, no indivi of SARS can sets 2 matler with & tuspeyer. Any settlement and/or sompromitc is reeommented by « commitiss known a8 @ Tier 4 somedtne that mikes recommendations the Conanissioner.418g 445.10 ASAE A512 Pegs 22 of 65 Hie wes & witness ou betalf of tie employer bs 6s Leslry wate. Alor Mbathe bed eomtsated len, the cont 8, teat message fo Abate as he was not clear whether ty communicating, with bint i relation t the Lackay enatir, ke was breskine bit ‘suepention conditions. Hin understanding ofthe deciaretion ayetens fs chet be is invited by the system sod the sytem wilt ve all the details and thus eave as evidesse of the deciaraGons of ths proviow: yous, The system will require ihn to either confion the cument information wn it mppoare ox ths eter or wpe ihe eolsting information that is on the syste. ‘Bik Burhor undestanding was thet be only nondod (© update the system ifs wanled to inctads new declarations, ix, tions he kad mover previously ceclerad, Brookdya Ridge end 4 Leventer Lacs oe ‘investment propertice fom which be exrus rentalPage 28 of 60 455.13 He dectered tho following propertics on the ystem: 415.131 2193 Kormotsl-2003. 415.32 38 Broskiys Ridge end Lavender ‘Lane - 2008. 435.16 He oollé uot muske say declartion dering ApsiV May 2012 us the eystem wer not Simotioatng, a that tine, He only ha an opportunity to eke « deslmson when the eystem began operating in December 2012, 41815 Ho was e disector of Ble Fire Worx (ty) Lisstiod. ‘Thy company was registered in Februcy 2012 hewover, He could not declare it ApriViday of ‘2012 es the stom was tot fanetioning. 4.L5.16 Ho is oware of individealy ot the employer who ‘ia faled to make daleretioas fx sonordenes wit the palley and were never disciplined,44337 41518 485.10 41520 Page 26 of 66 Ho muerwent e venting procedure in 2015, ‘He kad the eeapioyer's best Interest et heert when, ‘bs mods the cello Mennoslel, He woske never Allow the employs te be ploced i « position of sisepeie, ‘Ths mos why be called Neaoaolel was berense dhe wented (0 evnld SARS belng enbemsssnt ix one goin at the iratence af dt Mipiomnce. Ts remorse te © question tet I pes to bo, he sisted that Uc fact thet te od meds 2 call oe ‘Nennooll i respect of toate of Mpiaavas would Inova tid sepative conseauennes to SARS 16 thet {informatio Bat Keck,Page 25 of 60 SA Charges | to Sad SZ BAS Sua "The interpretation of the suspention condilone adopted by the cenaployes is incorrect ‘The employes kuaw le was required to obuain permiceiom fm ‘Mokoea prior lo woekiog the call fa fae nd tar exxployee id not obtain speh peaiasion. ‘The Chalrperson should take into comidention ths judgment of the Stprene Cosit of Appes! fn Nate Jlnt Muniineline easion Eupd_v Enlemen’ Munispalis’ thet outlines the Iisciples of interpreting writin documents ‘The employee's faterpretation of his suspension conditions mupgasta that be mey contact other emplayees: without Mokosne's consent provided It Is not doing working bores, ‘ penayy 84 563 0A) epee ETSBS 546 Sat 548 Pege 26 0f 6 ‘Such inteepretetion, the exsplayer contend, clearly wsdenninee tie purpoes of ts sespention. ‘To fateryret the exxpomaien notice ie eny other wey would ademas the purpess of te document nd bead to lareantble and nbusinceaiis results, ‘The eorplayee docs nat dispute taving moetved the ew of Gnasher 2016 He contends that ke wae wot ware of the vesvon for the emaell, however does uot disputs that he did be ‘het enntsct the Commissioner witic an sospension. ‘The cami of 12 Ooiober 2016 constituted © lawl and reasonable incruction and the employee's conduct poses & sdlfbcrnas end srtous obeong to the employers muthotty, ‘The employes war aware thst thee would be cegutive sonsoquences to SARS if the cell bocamns public Imowledge ‘The Ft that these negative conrequences wold ste I the (torre woud be eae ws the emapoyer’s concerns,$2 sae $22 523 Page 27 of 60 ‘There was tebsequent negetive medic coversge relating to the ‘employes beesching his euspecsion conditiss end it belng Hioked tthe Miplonne mater, “Tore war in reallly 10 need forthe employes to loservene oc. behalf of the employer. The employer led sheady communicated with Mukersvho thet they would not do enything until Nanxoolsl returned te work. ‘The employes sought 19 amange & meeting with the employer on behalf of the taxpayer that would otherwise not have Iappeand ay tase prior to the court dase. ‘ensoote tenified tat it fe oot of rempeet thats eveded (0 the employee's request in depeet dom the employer's officiel tages sacl avail hiieself thet would otherwise not have Sappened as early eked. 1 Goss wot mice thas Newessolettactifed wndar ont tat be i not fel intiseaced by ths employee, What euttss i thet fhe enspioges Imew that Ine could tativence Neanoolet toPage 28 oF 0 evinte fom the official stanes of ths exmployer end thet he kx fice ik ‘Ctanpes 5 and 6 gar $32 533 ‘The employes did not disclose hie eppslatuse! as « director a ooiy disclosed bis reskgention ux 1 direntor in December 01, ‘Under crose-exumnination the employes canceled ther ff a ‘peotan ie appointed s director in August 2017, is teuns of the ‘Bihice Policy he mumet not wail until April 2018 to declare bie Gectorlp in the ety, ol dlcckinare of private invest is key to the prevention of ‘eid in seralving sltoations of cone of interest exc uptolding (he integrity oF the employes, ‘The momage fom te Commissioner that eccompenisd the Bice Folly cenphasses the importance of fil dletoeure by SARS officials end the content within which the Bihes Policy ‘was defied wnt is intended punpoce, The mezange provides ex filters:535 $36 the explager: itt edt a busines imperctioa. Te employer mistom to browden the tx bate and promote voluntary compllance relies heavily on how well SARS locks after he public finds extrasied tot” ‘The wording of paragraph 9.1 of the Ethics Policy clearly ‘ereetes ax abligation ok the employer's official to annually sibel © decteretion from April end Mey. Jt ercetce n further btipetlon for the employee offcils to submit an additional ectereticn, forma ue exxd when thee ars chonges (x the ‘officials private lateness. ‘The reason for the employee's resignation ax director In Bit 2012, Le thet potindial conilict of intereat, demonesrtes the ‘iraportence of the obligation to declaw changes ix private: Interet ead whan they acour es opposed 10 April and Moy when the enmutsl declaration is submitted, ‘The exloyer submits thet the employee should bo found ily ofthis charg.Sd SAR Sab 54S Pages of “Ths employee Je 6 queliid eutizor eu senor enceatlve at es employer oad yet expente Ge Cinirpercon to belleve that ‘be did wot uoderstond the policy to cents ex obifertion ox hie (i doclere rental income. ‘The employes could not give an exemple of wint would cscatltte “oler dnterasts bn hand ond property". Therefore, ‘he polley would have no prustoe! mesiing Uthe eonployes'e Isteepeclatins ware to bo wacepte. At e factual level, the employee dose net dispate that he did ‘aot deeleee reseed, Even though Gopime tetited thet 1 wae har wnderotanding (Gt the Ethics Policy did not erenle xs obligations on exxployees to dectore rent income, te rust cot be nseepiod ‘er the exmployer"s position, ‘Our conte have been enphaie on this ewe: tha correct Jnterprestion of any writen docunsent ts "h mati oF iw an$46 587 SAE 549 Page 31 of 60 ‘aot of fect end, ssoordingly, intepretetion fs m matter fer the ‘sourt end not witneseas”, ‘The craployer subasiie tut the employee is guilty of contrevoaing the provitions of te Htkies Policy by falling declare remal inconse forthe imumovebte property ature at & Lavender Lane, Js addition to is fale 10 dectow reste! income, the ‘enployoo filled 0 ennwally declare bis owoceuhip fn ceria, fmmavable property ducing the yeare 2012, 2612, 2083 and m4. ‘Ave Komal level. tho emplayse doce wot dispute dat he did at decleas hin ownership i these properties for the periods et stint ctarge teat, ‘Tie employee gave four versions during hie tonimony os ‘why he felled to eenuatly dsctire bie propetiea, These ‘verstone were that: $491 Tie wes obliged to dectere repeatedly.Page s2 0069 $492 Intewete previeuly docked oppeacing tn subsequent forms us o result of « change of dosociption of thet intrest, 54953 Interests proviousiy declared where there has been no change in the domsiption eppeacing on ts sabsaquent deckeretion firm becoury of « change of an interest elsewhere on the form. SABA Not knowing why the system peists the fnferrmstion prints ate. ‘The employer subsiits thet the employes cheuld be frond gutlty of ell tee aeemvotiunes charge, ‘Tike exaployes'e sulsetesions: 6.1 Ths charges were mot deafied by the employer's employees, Neither ‘Mbaths.20r Mokoean drafted the chaps shast. 62 The employers assertion tha in terme uf tx Ethles Polley, the ennployes ‘wor obliged to declare bis immeoveble properly every year as well hlsPage 33 of 60 rete Income, is & direct contedioton to the evidence thet wnt given by ‘Gopane, the employer's only wiineas with regueds lo chagpes 5 end 6. No evidence was fed to demonsnste eny enitiemont or authority te inieapret the Btbica Poliny any different from tke inserpretation gives & ‘tem by their custndion, Gopes. ‘No evidence was led that the Ethics Commines bed ever rived concerns With any of the employee's decloretions. Ifthe employer's conteation tht interpretation is = nastier of Hew und not of fact was to be nevepted in the ereantstacea of this case, it would be ‘Prejudicial to the employee in ttf: 65.1 would entile the oxaployer to attesh an interpoetation thet i ut ‘odds with the evidence that was given by its own witness; end 652 undermines the employee's abilty to relee a dafénce to these allegations, ‘This fe ln the cootest of the avideaco thst wes given by Gopaan to the effet thet te policy imposes ths ebtigstion to declare and the syeteen seqdes eamployees to declare annually.ar 610 Pega 34 of 6 An employes le eniitied to be judged ageinet « clear ruts, It dove nat emus the employer to refer to canes on contract interpuetetion, “The exaployse finds biseel? in the position wine bi ts fusing disciplion ‘owing trom tx intespesstnn of policies, ‘Gopenc’s clear evidence fs toe ths Bios Polley doos wot oblige the camplayee to dectrs his rents incoms oro doplicate decteratins. Gopane fies ested tet these i disparty ka how che Bis Policy te applied. (No evifeace wes presented by the employer thar thes GIRL employee's felephons call fe Nenncstsl refsted to bs smespension of prefadioed ths reason for which ke wos upended 6.11.2 eauployos Inwow of the vasied and conflicting interpretation of how he shoalé uedenstand the express penbibiden in parmgrach (Ghat the suspension nocice; and612 613 64 65 6.16 Rage 3508 66 GALS eamployee was evere thet the “ding working hours” ‘iectsion in the probibiton was ts be intnrpreted as brnedly ax suggested by the evidesce of Mba or Miotocas. ‘Neither bathe nor Msloect could evteblich the cule or leaané with ‘Which role the employee wes requted to comply. Numools! gave sisar evideuce thet there wes nothing untowend of ‘mxproper with te cal of 13 Jesuasy 2017, ‘The employae had no entitencet ar power to lustruct, direct or infhaence: Nannoolel. The cell hed no meteie! ecasequonce end the texpeyers concerned could Hot gain eny advantage ex & reault of the employee passing & mesrage shout 5 meetig to Nexnoole, ‘There is wo evidence of disrepute. The fact that the employee ind bea charged for & telephewe call, the occurence of whlch was isiked to the media, doce not prove tat the conduct was disreputable, ‘The employee wes subjected to & vetting process sod ie in porsessina of security veting chocanon wa lad ever bes denied suck clearance,age 36 of 60 G17 A omclet desemnlaation ie whether the ovldeace preesated at the Ginviplinacy hearing wos saifslest tz soxwla changes paoftiered apetoet ‘hp exployeo in tomas of the guldelings isd down in Stem: 7 of Sebedna of ths Labour Reletnas Ast 66 of 1995 as amet. SIE The employee sabmalts that tha employer has filled to prove « prin facle: case ogainst the exeployes. RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS FA Change 1 to-€ eonentlly conceen the following ullogetoas: Tat Be 143 4 ‘The breach of the sumpension conditions, (Gmes insubordination, Failure to oot be the ex interest of ie eupioyer endor iobag the eployer kaw postion fobs in disp, ‘Abuse of position andlor exornieing undue tnlisenes,Page 37 of 60 ‘Th Bresch of the suspensions conditions 72 Inorder for ous to determine the verclty of the siegations relating o the breech of tho mupension conditions, itis important that the prininles solating to naspensions be undesttod. It fe very often thet mispeations ee chellouged end employes, when thle hoppers, are called pon to Jastlfy thele decisions to suspend employees. 73 Wu RIBE for Education v Gresell? the court stated the following: "[24] The fudge’: conclusion thet the KES etd not have ‘ao objectively futtifiable reason to deny Ue eimployes acess to the workplace’ ‘way predieated wen hie findings that before such @ ootras of conduct exuld be fustfintte the REC had to herve taken a decision 10 conduet on tnveatigetcn, ond! tht te tho Instance the HEC had wot done 20. The requlrement of paragraph 2.7(2) ts that the exeploper should believe (reaxonahly) that the presence of the emplayes ‘mgt feopardise ony investigation ..” The Judge was of te opinion that Wf no decision to Investigate fs taken before Ingoring a suspension, then 6 condition precedent so the kanfit exorcise of the power haz not bean fulfilled. As he pia i: ‘there ought nf lean te ba a datislon wo conduct the tevetigation Uefore suspension ts contemplated.’ Fle ond that the MBC dectied to suspend the respondent before ie took a decision to invecdpate cand hence that the suspension war vnlavgfil. The conclusion, ny view, sete the standard loo high end fe i coy net foctudly erroneous,Fags $8 0f 60 [28] The lsarnedl juage baved his factoal finding on o ssntence ta the (MEC's lester ts the eaponiestcazed 14 July 2010 wibioh reads: ‘Place wate thet & docdeion to tnvestlgase has wot jot been finaliesd, but tite office exvalte your further input to consider whether grounds est to suspend yes an the lass of the allegations mace analor to further bevestlgate ‘the atingattons recetees! by this affice.* ‘Tiés wosement corset alone serve ax sategertat! gooey that the conalton precedent hod nat bose mt. The wording of paregraph 2.702) does nat weyivooilly regtire the enploser to take & conclusive decision to investigate before the power con be Yonflly execetsad, 4 te enough that amy (current or future) tools pe ogen's tees Instmates thot Uf en feveatigation te within precndton il be rt, Te stmt in le @ ls 2016 wesker 11 cbuundently plain thet such ox favestigatien wat bsing contemplates, but shat dee procese required the reaporadert's hap bafre a final desiree was tober, E26] But even were o dacition to tnvestigate prerequisite t the lawgfil aneraize of the porwer to suspend, the MEC averved, and ‘the evaliable evidence confirms, that such e decison wes fn fact taken priar to the suspension Ja the letter of suspension dated ond delivered wo the resparedens on 15 Fly 2010, the MEC stated: ‘Consequently 1 hee dsckied to commision @ thoroseh ond ingnedints tevertigation Into the allegation of leconduct which are levelled egutest you in your capacity ar Chief Direcsor ant actiog Suprintendont.exeral periclniag to the registration end fending of cho Beste Mpalegets Nywors Care Cesirs, ond all cxte ond omnisstons cnciliory thereie, Tn an efert 10 alow the the beasts of the sertoamass of the allegations against you,py ee Poge 3060. ‘Thave decided tz invoke the provisions of Clouse 2.702Ka) Of Chapter 7 ofthe SHS Handboak ..* Js tae reset, the learned judge's suppesttton that the suspension was unlowfed, because there was no objectively furtfctle reason 10 deny the applicant ecvess te the workplace when no tsmactigation was under way, was both fogely end focealty incorrect. Aste fromm that, te fucige erred tn Kis approach (6 eternsiing the loyfinass of a suspension ix terms of paragraph 2.72). Hts cholce wos to consider tke cartons allegations opetost the respondent war mistaken, dt peuaral ride, & decision regarding die lawfulness of @ sumpension fx terms of paragraph 2.772} will ceil for 6 preltetsory fiidlng on the allegations of serious lscondeet as wall as a determtection of the reasonableness of the employer's belief the the contineed prennce of the employes et the workpline might Jeopardlize any Investgetion ete. Jie the present cae, the MEC's version sets oot a detailed end compelling prom facle cass of sertous miscumtuct cagatiet the respondent, Ax discussed earlier, mast of the allegattons ware uot even camvaceed, nover mind dented, by the respondent ta reply, The reasons he advanced for14 1 18 a Frege 0 0f ot dealing with there are at best spurions, if nol 1s frum the pele of court desis Oat dat with dissed mpecsions Gat relevere aspects ofthis charge should be asceened ene detenmtnac {ks conumon cause that on 15 September 2056, the employee was served with « nstien of sagpension Jn terme of the exaployes's suspension conditions, he wes edivived not to contuct any of SARS exployoee without cbtalains peealetion from tae ssmployer's seqeesemaive, Mokent, Jt is else coven emacs thet do eoplayee comteried Neanoolal ox 13 Jamuary 2017, without binning persicsion,We Poge 41 of 66 ‘The employes’ suspension wes effected tn sccondancs with the employer’ Disciplinary Cade end Procedure, Clause 9 of the ‘Dinoiplinary Code and Procedure records the foltowing: 78 The employer may exspeed he employse on full ney and ‘benefits or tentfer the employes poodiing uu lnvettignton fore period not longer then (sty (30) working daye: TALL IF the employes fr alleged ts fave commited sa. offisce that i oF rious mature, 7812 To subliies dee working exvizoumeat in onder to conduct g.pomer javestinstion ine the alegations eeelisd easiest sho eonployer/s. end te mvoid the ‘poteatial tempering with _ evidenes enor ineertneeose with the investigation. F813 To minmles any rink and/or potentid demege ‘SARS propany snd/or denger to the wallbcing of other SARS exployees dering sa imvesinaion.7 rie mt Page 42 of 66 TR1A To potest and mee winewes aut tw evokt fnateferenes ce intimldction of witnesces diving tas ‘eonste of toe investipetion. Nis cheer ftom cinuse 9 of ths Disciplinary Code se Procedure that thes fen veqolremont for ie w be a conus benwecn mn fvrerigation nd © snusparsion, [ens of the viow thot it ic ths iategety of the favectigtion fat the employer cocks to pretest Gamagh scatrfoting an employee's enttenest to communicate with fiflow emplayess oils on sispenaias, ‘withost obalatag peraltor, ‘Senefbly inteqeoted, the probibition end the seed wo obtaix permission procitios ths exoployer with © safety net tough which i is able e nupervise and pesurve te efbreeld tategriy of is ievestigesoe, ‘Th ‘slso enables the employer to protecl potential wimeeses by reserving ons ‘nelf the right to someon, sesser and doinmnine tho peeudine, if any, thet sight ensue on eccunnt of peemissioa: chut fr requested by en exipinyee oa sutpensing, to eanizct tllowt emptnges, 1 ls for this rearoa that Cure fe wo wtat bar oF phrokuss prohibition fore eoxpencied employes tm costart hile fallow exmptoyeee.1 Tad Tad 1s Page 43 of 60 ‘Where wo harm or prejudice might be cemsed by rach reeest, it does not coor that there wonld be a proper nesses or batls for dae exmployer to decline the sequent This must be whet laformed Mia's response 10 the employee regsnling whether ho was breaking his suspension conditions by comnnafcating with hin with regents to the Leckey wastes when ho responded by stating thet those ere “two separate metters™, ‘What stout also not ts ignored fs the evidence of Nenwoolel whee be stated thet ently there wox nating unduward sbout the employee's exlt sad ecoonsly, thet the employee sdvised biz wot to do enything unlwfil ‘nis handing of the mater. 1 ibn, I ke Important wo move tet ts subject of the telephone calt 2 not concurs the fesse for which the employes had been easpended, fe. the PRE eeport oF invextigeions ta respect of ieee relating 10 hls stleged soondectertion, aesaming Gast ke was swaro thot this foo was a earou for Be suspension, esr lees ec ent trae ALC, 3 eA te seesamesteas ect sees ofa psf epee116 aT 118 78 120 72 Page 44 of 60 For one to dolemsine whether the enployes mashed the conditions of bis saepenston, b wit slso be necessary to enosidor the macsing of te swords “working hows", tt wre not dispated thet whee the employes contected Namnoglal be war enre that Henuoctet wut on bseve. ‘The word “eave fa definsd, eccondingly to the Sout: Aftcen Concee Oxford Diettonery to mean “ae when ons is boon given peraalslan jo ‘ebeont fm eur co ut” Condition {2} oF the Conditions of Suspeasion imposes & restriction or probibldas on tho employes tm not conlsct EARS employees “woriog ‘eorkdng ows", {em of the view thet seed both sonaiily end parpostvely, the probibitias thet rebetes to “working hours" cannot apply t an employee thet fe on ose ence by He very definition, the wend “Inve as wlresely Inlet ‘bereinbefone, suthorises an camplayes to be absant “trom work or duty", 1 fins exon, fs sy view, the anid that elthough an eatoyes les been ‘elven permission to be abeest from work or dary, dhelr haine while on {eve shoatd be lnterpeeted to exmtitte "wentcng ntrs®,Page 4s ot 60 TERA Cilfereat wny to intepret the words “working fours” Is for ous to approach ft on the basis that thoes are the bots thet an comployes Seicaics sales devotes to ax exiployer, That cunmot be suid t bs the cass whore an exiplogee ison eave, That is heir own dine, 723 For thew nasons, T couctade thet when an employee f os leave, tele tiene does not qaify as tise dedleated ender devoted ton employer. { sccordingly do not cansider sams fo constitute “working Rows", Grea: Ineuberdtastion 7.24 ‘Tho allegation is that on or about 11 of Ontober 2016, Mbathe xem ex eal] to the employes. The email refered to the suspension sonsigone ‘contalned is the soepeuslon notive dated 15 September 2016. 725 The employer led evidence thet ths ernell wes tent ac o result of the ‘Commissioner beving receiving cals fom the employes dating dis suspension. 7.26 The employer contends thet the emi! from Mibathe served as © ewEil Jnstraction to Use eraplayee and the exiployte Fale to adhere ere. ‘7.27 Having elready found thot contecting an employes thet is on lesve des ‘uot amount to cosiscting nach an employes during his “working hears",Page ds of 0 4 Follows thet by contzeting Nanoote, the employee's coudast dass not ssc ta aeberdfualon, fet elane grass iessbordinetion, Frediera to ect bn the best terest of the exaplager andlor placing the sexployer ba e position to Bein Alerts 728 The omployer ellopes fiat the folepbawe call made by the employee te [Nexooole! had the potential of pling i im dleepate and entice tot the ‘sployee's retlons did mot refeguerd tho employer’ best Interest, 728 Ths employes conceded thet had someone lethed the infirmntion thet be ade © call to Namnoclal, the matter would recelve mystive mesis atenon, 730 I wnus of he South Atticen Concise Oxtosd Dictinssry weady referred to hereinabove, the word “disrepate™ Ia defined ts mean “the suze of being discedied", 731 When epplicd wo the charge, t meine thet the employee fe being charged, ‘wits conduct thet exulé posutially esues the employer ts be discredited ‘The fs peemized os the tateghons call bate mick to Nanseolal wed the poten of that fst, Ls. chet hs ed ealfod Nasnole, bstng accede smemors of ths publiBoge 47 of 6 734 Teta hapten to consider te fac het HE BARS bad indeed beam pt ints disrepute on account of the employes caine Nenooole, ft eauld have ‘exerulned its prerogative of disciptine by cheeging the eaxplayos with such conduct 733 BARS did oot charge him the employee's conduct puting & into isnepate, fechanget hire wth « potentiel of puting i inte disrepute. ‘734 WF the charge hed beon tbat of ecuslly pulling SARS into derepute, principles such ax those that were refimed to fn the matter of BRP sd Two Orhes,S where the following was sinted: “T9] ta thts regard, she proven cirsasioncas tre fr remaved front ‘hase i Timothy v Nampak Corrugated Containers (Pty) Lid ~~ a ease ‘et wich Br Jackson relied. In Nampak, she employee had ben disetesed for having inter lia tmparsonated an aitorney, ceting Ashonestiy end bringing his mplayer into dterepute. That could hardly 6s equoted with sending afew salacious emails to a customer's employee ‘to make ber ealees's a wax Cleyton's Intention, Ae Davie Jd sald tn ompake Y reavonable docition maker woold ham engoged tx an bifective evaluation as to whether the employes brought the compen into disrepute An objective test enjoiss on scaminaiion, ta all the clvctcsances, of the nature of the ‘po BLAS AeFrage 48 of 60 conduc evaluates the turpitude ond rerioumers thoreaf ond thee mashes an evaluation ax te vehether the charges con bs susie” f2Q Be stds cose, the employes's cetions, albete chitdish ant deliberate, i 2 dows sot equate to ‘have trmapht de company into disrenste, ‘napsibide’, ie, depeovity or base ection of the kind thet would rng the eompory (os oped tot empayesinto deepte.* ‘would have become sppliceble. 7s 736 at AF the enployas bed boon changed with Inving actully brought the cmployer inte disrepuis teuagh making thls phos cell, his condi ‘would bnive had ts be exmained through su objactive test ux Wind to in tive chove ing! sudorition and to determine whither, at mutter of fet, ‘nis conduct did brig the eaployu into dlrepete. ‘Th such an instanes, dhe prevence or theenee of the element of tnmpitric ‘would fave bal to be exeenined. Having vegand to both tho evidence of the eemployen ox that of Nemoolel, wkiag info eccount what the eubject matter of the ‘convention Was chont, Ht esanot be dlguied tt the totility of the evidence duet mat exitbit the presauce of mupltade. To the comrery, dass mst.138 78 7a Tat 1a Page 68 of 69 Tom milnifil of th fect thet the employes wae only chengod with the potential und not actually bniaging te eaployer ists disrepute, Fem elec rind ofthe fect thatthe eouployes waited that Ifthe feet that he had tasde © telephone calf fd feaked, it would beve bad negative ‘evnsequenzes for SARS, However, hat wok! wot have been tas eud of thewastie, ATGARS was egerieved thereby and having bon atifiod that ‘uch conduct did put it into dinmputs, tt would bave xo charmed the employes. 1 is leo inaportant io beve regard to the feat thet one ofthe complaints ‘by the employer roperding fife conduct ls thet the employer fled to ect ‘ns its best Eatrest. 1 his roger, the employes stad thet when fi meds the telephone call, ‘ke wes motivated by the employer's best interests ond the desire to avoid a repeat oF SARS being exbermsved x the bande of the Mplsants. "Tho employer stimu thet there wes no nex for the employes to intervene hoe fs faterests were not st isk, forthe reason siete hevelneattier, What the employer's evidence does net chow browover tx thet the ‘employer imew thet the evoployer's interests were not and cat nol have18 18 748 1s Page 80 of 60 ‘owe i at hes thne tat es mais the telephone call bt processed ts call Rexasob, aomethefers, ‘Give te feo tat wrhatfssinted tn parepraph 742 sbove dose wot erie in this cose, i bege the question wheter the employee's explanstion soganting hi motive fir making the tlephoae call ean be dismissed ot ‘Tejeatnd out of Rend. I go, does the evidence paint io any other motive nad what fe? 1 ts common cours thet Neneoolat bad no eatbeety to suile wiih the luaspayer end thet no wltesapt wes nade by the exaployen to either fatrect cf infiuence bim io settle with the Mplsines. To the cowinny, he was ‘enprasely told not to ect cominery to the Law, 1 fe leer than by tolling Reneootel mat to ust comicey so the fs, the sroployee wes making b plain to him tet the Mplonees thou not gaia ony waft edvaniage ic how Nesncotsl was going to deal wit te mates, Glowing frm that telephone esl, ‘Namanolu! did not give evidence thet the employse mchuly infloenced ‘him fa the porformsance of bis Goties. Thee eu toil of te ect thet wes teken by Nemoolel casosqent or premised upon the idlephane caff that ‘he mesived from the employes, wus to enangs @ macting ca Moaday 5s7at a8 149 Page $i of oth he mid Qa exmployee were nok avers that the Cour shelter that wes sat dows for the following Tusaday, wes mo longer going to proceed. 1 scsept Nesmoatal's evkence thet but fr the iekephons call, he would not have sebeduled the mesting for the Mowday. Howover, that evidence mest be viewed fo the tntality of the contest of the entinaty of iis ‘evidence. Althongh thie meeting wes eonvened ow Mona, 1 war called or armaged ia circumsmuces where the employer hed made f clear and ‘Nemnoolal xfso understood that iawfat conduct wes expected om hit past n dealing with the mate, (Ocr lew often vefee ts the trite principle Get wher there is cus but no elles, thet conduct fe not ectloaabis, By way of example, if share fs & ‘collision between two vebicles endl ons of thes wes deving at 120 Bp in 2 6% tow moss, 1 dose not follow tat proving thie fet establishes causality. Causality witt il have to bs etablshed ete fhetua! levet, ‘Ths seats prinolple epplice here in thet the caling of suck & aneating ‘without say undue infieenoe, exsrting of rechorty and no instruction for ay wala edkvustage to be secured on bebatf of the Mpisuses, amatmnts to ease without nay effect,Page $2.0f60 780 eccondlngly fad the there tec basis to refost the exiployes's evidence: sand topeties with thet of Nennoolal, dat he war mothated by the ceonploger's best Sntonests when he mide the Sleptione ca ‘251 Receordlagly follow thet the employee's conduct does nex eonstlame an hase of bis position andlor an eticngt wo exeocins Improper infaence, eg alone influence one BARA employus, Lelsberets Sth hereinbelow, Abuse of postion enttor exerctsing endue ieftuence 752 x desling wits is eltogation, vegan vat be ka! ta the Sollowings ‘TSbL Namnanlel te Hs evidence wstiies that be did not feet ‘pecerured by the exaployer. 7522 Ths exployee advised him to wet im a leaf manner fe hie hesding ofthe etter, ‘F523 These was nothing uatowent with the call from ti emsployen, ‘F52A The employee s aot hte direct liee aecreges.Page $3 0f 60 7.523 Ho dows meke xetosment aprosment unior compromaes with ‘the taxpayer. A commitice named Fler 4 fe vested with that usr. 7526 We neceded to ths requeet of the eamplayoe becsure he respecte the employes howeves, he advised that he would acted tn the same manner hed be been requested by other colleagues of kis who mr slo fevolved i the Mipleese neater, 753 The employs'e contention that tho employer tatended to presauclse ‘Nensootsl, ineepective of whother Nannoolal felt thst be wis being ‘preccured ta sct ine pertieuker meaner at not, i diielt fo nusiain besos Gis areaceationed objective feats, 784 Theee ie eioply ne bests to fd thet the eamployes intended to presnuise ‘Rannocla! entior shaved his potion andlor exectised wade infiueace fe edrcanastanees whee wo direct or mesningh extcom to the benefit of the taxpayers coukd be obteined by virtue of thet tclephoue call, i ceccondtngly teest the employer's costentions inthis regard. Charges § ext 6 relate te the exsplagee's fadlare ts meke certula declaretlane es preseetbad by the Eiides Pelicy 755 Ihe alleged tht the employee felled to disclose the following:76 1st 181 7888 “7383 Page 54 0f 60 ‘is invectiment proparties as resorted uates charge 6 shove: lic ric fname tn respect of the thovtmentinne propertis, Hil directorship position et Biz Fire Worx (Pty} Limited. ‘The caployer dons seme as s violation of clausn 9 of the files Pallay 1s well Chinse § of ths Ethios Cade of Conduct. ‘Gopi under croer-ererminstion conceded ts the following: 7STA 18th 7598 1SIA “The repeated deckanions ure not preevibed by tho Bibier Fotloy Ike « sale of the eyetean uted by the employer that there be sepenter Sectasetions, ‘The system wns not fnctioning fous Agel 2012 ull ‘Denson 2012, ‘The Ethies Comunltiee would oddest sctespoudence ‘ightighting an employee's nos-coceplinnce with tee miles,788 1 181s Fuge 58 of 6D ‘There are murano olber employees who bad not dociamst ‘their properties end sasets, however they wers not rxbjecisd ti ech dlselptinmy procemas, {is common cance thet tho exployoas sve toqubrad to desis thales2scts sad finther requlret to request penailssioe pelos 2 engaging in eny work cutis of tas exnplayer in order to svold posslble enuflict of interests ‘The eamployer in hs evidence edmitted the following thst: 1491 1582 7893 1884 1895 {hn wes indeod « director et Biz Fise Wore (Pay) Lite ‘the company was registered in Febrosry 2017 ead he reuigned fe May 2012; ‘ho could not dectore becouse in Apeil the Syotem wes not ‘fisedioning; ‘he had declared bs peopertice previously end wea not ewnce ‘dat he bid to declare anaually, ‘he wer bjesied to © secutlty vetting procedure and he cobestned the security voting clewuncs certificate in 2018; end10 781 1 78 Bago $6 oF 60 F586 tbo did wot know tat he wer supposed to duolage bis rextal ‘comme. ‘Thove ie ovafission regarding bow the aystom of dsclerxtion opensiss end ‘What wes required of the employees. ‘The employer contzads thet the evidence of Gopene should be ignored send thst since interpretation is @ quecion of few and mot of fect, tie queation shonld be detaminel pucly ty way of ax intesprstations) emerelse, ‘While 1 ages with the exaployer thet interpretation fm question of kw ‘zal eat 2 quetion offic, contextual evidence baued ois desislone much ee (hat of Notel Jolot Muntoipst Penson Fund oye cad Boshi. ‘Trensoort (dime) Bk v 8 Hots and Rem Tyarsoort (ems) Bok orvalasbls in the procoss of fterpreteticn, Tesofir a dhs allegation of fdler to deolare i concerned, the quastion of ‘tie conmet Inforpeetation does not beoome relevent fs the circumomeces of this case dus tothe fot dt bots om the veeion of tus employer par Sone) 8h 64 e8CAS ape (LOHLI18 168 Page ST oF 60 6s ovideass of Gapene and thet of the ecxplayes, no puniskament wes suetered out aguinst employees tat had filed to dectnre in ths pact. ‘De tothe fact art the eosployer's wisness fs the one that pefeeed to thle Inet and uo other witness was called by the employer to en eter to corec| that evidenos exifr to presons diffrent ficts fa ist regard, the ‘employes does not ses to ently the requirements nat out in the mstter of ABSA. Netiu.” where the cout makes t clesr tat fa seskiog ts ‘aval the party principio, x employee mmat do more fr en effet oF aompt to demonetnte that the eases) hefes sesks ws ely upon, are ‘indeed consparnble to the allegations of msisonachict with which hefche teas bean charged. 1 fs important fo bear the following four toneos: or piles on which the process of discipline ross: 7.65.1 There raust bea rele, 765.2 Thenule mosthe inom, 74655 The rule mast have ben breached,Page 58 of 165.4 The nats enuel be ooueatestly appli. 7.65 On the basis of the evidence presented in respect of fathers to dociars, 7 ‘iad thet by charging the exployse, dhe employer has tmonsizeutly piled discipline and for thet reetox, there te 20 tasks to find tx craployee guilty of thst charge, ‘761 Ths exlatoace of the requivessent for the exployes to obtaln peemisslon to undertake caiside eemploymscut fs examen osute toptther with the fet tet it was nok eoenplled wil. The purpote of requesting and obtaintvg perasscion for engeging kx eay work outside of tht of the employer te for ‘Feepesee of avoiding prusible confit of interest, ‘7.68 The employee hes given ovideuse mgarding the semulty vetting procedure aud the sssurity vetting elesrence certificete that he obtains’ Purrumst dhorase. He gave evidenss Goat anything that he did uot declece ‘at bs was required to declare, would heve been detected in that peocess, ‘The fant thet be ons furslehod with e eecurity veiling vorifieate is ‘indicative of ths faxt dust there wes no teeaspoession ou bis pert. Taps) BLL NELACS eee18 770 an an 1B Page 58 of 60 ‘Abtough the euployse di not tecons is appoistment as x director of ‘Bis Fire Worle: (Pty) Lintied, hes devlared bie resiguation, {nal instenzes of noo-declantion on which the employer secke to rely, it is tmportent to nate thet there are none that the employer esteblisind of ‘is own accont, tet ane-noton ite systen, ‘Th complaint is elther thet of falters of dectasiug ropeicively or eclering the resignation in cireumansnces wisere the sppoiniment ae 5 director had not or was wot declared, Je would be artical to exek to dlitingults betwean mot having declared the oppolntent ae e dlracior and filling o request persaission prior to. enpapiog. in work outsite of that of the soployer in order to avoid possible conflict of interest, The fact of the matter is thst ft és bis sppointaent 08 & director thet enabled bite to or through which be pocformod work outside of tes of the employer, tn this instance, the tw sels are inectricehly Baked mnd the splinting is leiperminsble einee the as is 6 cousequenss ofthe other, responstble for Ms tilue 1 dese in cremate: where otherPage 66 of employees bad ules not deotered in ths past anno disciptioary ects ‘was token ngatest whem, Faso find the employes Sot Buty inthis regard, 7I6 So addition, Yates fined teat there iv no evidence that eatablidees conta ‘her fs ettver unbecoming and/or dishowest on the past of the exipleyee, CONCLUSION For ths retsoms net ot bereinchove, I ind the employes nat guity of ell af the cktrges that ace levelled egtinst hina,