ESKOM VS GRINDROD

The power utility denies that it ‘banned’ foreigner drivers from its Ankerlig site. The logistics company says it did. Who to believe?

Is Eskom, at heart, xenophobic? Does it discriminate against foreigners in its operating policies? Or is someone from Grindrod management not telling the truth? These questions arise from a new labour court judgment dealing with the sacking of three foreign heavy vehicle drivers employed by Grindrod Fuelogic.

They were dismissed in May 2014 after Grindrod said it had received an e-mail from Eskom saying that, with immediate effect, “no foreigners” would be allowed to deliver fuel to Eskom’s Ankerlig site in Atlantis, Cape Town.

Though Grindrod said the drivers agreed to go, the drivers claimed they were unlawfully dismissed and went to court.

The story appears to start when Eskom received some diesel contaminated with water. The judge said there was no suggestion that anyone employed by Grindrod was involved, or that the three drivers or any other foreigner was at fault.

Yet, according to evidence quoted in the decision, Eskom’s Ankerlig plant manager, Rodney Booth, subsequently e-mailed Grindrod regional manager Bryan Church, who was responsible for liaison with Eskom. Church said Booth informed him “that no foreign drivers would henceforth be allowed on the Ankerlig premises”, and “claimed it was an issue of national security”.

Church then called in the three drivers and told them of Eskom’s ban. He said that if Grindrod refused to comply with Eskom’s ban, the company would lose the contract and all the other drivers would have to be let go.

Grindrod officials claimed that, after these meetings, there was “a mutual retrenchment agreement” — but the drivers say they signed under duress and that three years later they had still not received any severance pay.

The judge held that the drivers were unfairly dismissed — not retrenched. “The only reason for the drivers’ dismissal was their nationality. [Grindrod] conceded that, but for the fact that they were not SA citizens, they would not have faced retrenchment.”

He said, however, that for Grindrod to have dismissed the drivers “because Eskom demanded it, does not make it fair. It is still a discriminatory reason”.

When nationality was the reason for dismissal, there could be no doubt that this was discriminatory.

“They had valid drivers’ licences and work permits. Their performance was exemplary. The only reason for their dismissal was a discriminatory one. It was automatically unfair,” the judge said.

Now Grindrod must reinstate all three drivers, with full back pay. Even if they work in another division of the company, it has to be on the same terms and conditions as before, said the judge.

Standard policy for entry

Eskom, asked for comment, said “foreigners” were “not banned” from Ankerlig. National spokesman Khulu Phasiwe told me he had contacted Booth, quoted by Grindrod in court as having e-mailed notification of a “ban” on foreign drivers. Booth explained that he had told Grindrod what the standard policy for entry was, namely that anyone wanting entry to the plant had to submit identification documents beforehand so the security department could give “clearance”, Phasiwe said.

“He [Booth] says this is the standard procedure: you must submit your papers in advance of entering the premises.”

Ironically, it turns out the “sacrifice” of the three drivers did not help Grindrod, which has since lost the Eskom contract anyway. An official commented that the company did not condone discrimination “of whatsoever nature” and that it was “considering the contents” of the judgment.

Clearly there is something strange going on. Eskom, already under a cloud, stands to lose even more credibility over its policy on foreigners. It would be in the utility’s interest to clarify for the public exactly who said what.

The only reason for [the drivers’] dismissal was a discriminatory one. It was automatically unfair Labour court judgment