Barclays judgement expected next week

Sharon Mathala | Thursday February 13, 2014 21:07

 

Former Barclays Bank employees, Sinikiwe Masalila and Beauty Tlhaga were dismissed last March despite what they say is a finding that the chairman of an appeal’s tribunal had found that the hearing in which their fates were decided was fatally flawed.

Attorney Tshiamo Rantao for the duo said that it was evident that his clients were being punished for being members of Barclays Management Staff Union (BAMSU). “My clients were dismissed in connection with a letter dated September 1, 2011. The letter was responded to by the managing director of Barclays Bank, Wilfred Mpai, on September 20, 2011. His response letter was addressed to BAMSU,” argued Rantao.

He submitted that in an affidavit entitled ‘Barclays Bank of Botswana Brand and Reputation Damage Investigation Report’ it was recommended that the bank management is in consultation to consider disciplinary action against members of the BAMSU committee. “The report further mentioned that this needs to be managed carefully to avoid appearing like a witch hunt against BAMSU,” said Rantao. He added that the report said that it is not recommended that all those who signed the register or attended the meeting be subjected to disciplinary action.

Appearing for Barclays Bank, Moemedi Tafa submitted that the actions of the two employees was undoubtedly intended to disregard the reputation and brand of the bank. “It is clear that the issues complained about were internal, which at the time, could have been addressed by the bank. However, they resolved to seeking external stakeholders involved in these affairs and created a negative ambiance in which the bank conducted its affairs,” said Tafa.

“There is simply nothing that indicates that they were charged merely because they were a member of the union. What is however glaringly apparent is that they were charged for the offence they had committed,” he argued.

The court heard that following independent investigations by the bank management, it was discovered that the two had coordinated a meeting with others and had written a letter to the bank management, copied to external stakeholders on internal matters. The investigations are said to have revealed that the two had obtained the signatures of those who attended the meeting by false pretences. It is said attendants were made to believe that they were signing an attendance register not an attestation to the letter.