Transport Ministry Scarce Skill Decrapency Unmended

Mpho Mokwape | Monday December 20, 2021 15:56

According to the ministry, sometime in 2018, they discovered that some of the employees at the Department of Road, Transport and Safety were being paid scare skill allowance whilst not qualified to receive the appropriation.

The ministry then decided to terminate such after reportedly informing all the parties involved, something that did not go down well with some of the affected employees who decided to take the matter up legally.

Subsequently, the ministry has been ordered to pay the two employees, Patrick Motlhanka and Ephraim Mokotedi, the allowance from October 2020 and restore it henceforth since they were never consulted.

Former Lobatse High Court judge, Tebogo Tau said the permanent secretary’s decision was liable for review because the two employees had submitted convincing evidence that they were not allowed to be heard before an adverse decision was taken against them.

“Although the employees were written letters inviting them to a meeting whose intention was to discuss the issue relating to termination of the scarce skill allowances, their averments that they did not attend that meeting due to the fact they were instructed to attend other pressing official duties were not denied,” she said.

The judge explained that the employees acknowledged that a consultative meeting was held in November 2018 to consult all employees who were affected, but they were unable to attend which was not their fault as they were executing official duties elsewhere.

She said thereafter the employees were not given an opportunity to make representation therefore the decision to terminate was improper.

“The employees submitted that the employer had ample opportunity to allow them to state why they were entitled to the allowance. That as they were not allowed time to make representation, the decision was improper and needed to be set aside,” the judge said.

While the ministry has been denied the chance to rectify its mistake, it still maintains that the two employees are not entitled to the allowance and that they were consulted.

The employer also argued that the employees did not have a right to receive the allowance nor did they have a legitimate expectation.

“The employees were afforded an opportunity to make representation as they were aware that the ministry intended to stop the allowance. They were written letters notifying them of the intention to terminate the allowance,” stated the ministry.

The ministry further explained that the decision to terminate was taken two years later, which allowed the employees to make representation and the fact that they did not attend the meeting didn’t stop them from making their representation.