Blowing the budget sky high!

If certain sectors of employees are governed by particular legislation, there is no getting around this. The case of National Transport Movement Zwane and others/south African Airways (SOC) Ltd illustrates.

Facts of the case

The Commissioner found that the Public Finance Management Act 1 of 1999 requires every public entity to have a board and that accounting officers must, among other things, ensure that suitable risk management systems are in place.

The employees’ claim that the Act did not apply to them was misleading because it was abundantly clear that the PFMA formed part of SAA’S rules. The fact that the Public Protector (PP) had exonerated the employees of wrongdoing was irrelevant because the Public Protector Act 23 of 1994 provides that an investigation by the PP did not affect investigations conducted under any other law. The Commissioner found that SAA had proved that the success and cancellation fees were far in excess of the norm and that the employees had failed to provide any plausible reason why they had not checked the credentials of the financial institution.

The CFO had also been warned that the fees were not market related and had made no attempt to establish whether the financial institution qualified for the payment of a cancellation fee. Both employees had clearly not acted in the best of SAA and had breached the PFMA. Their conduct was grossly negligent. Their dismissals were, accordingly, substantively fair. On the allegation of procedural unfairness, the Commissioner held that no evidence had been led to prove the allegation of bias, but that SAA had not contested the employees’ version that they had been denied the opportunity to call evidence in mitigation.

The Commissioner found - in view of the gravity of their misconduct - that the employees were not entitled to compensation for this minor procedural lapse.

The referral was dismissed.