Fired Barclays managers awarded damages
Mpho Mokwape | Tuesday November 4, 2014 16:17
While the High Court had ordered that Barclays reinstate Beauty Tlhaga and Sinikiwe Masalila, the Bank had appealed to the Court of Appeal (CoA), which upheld the judgement but found that payment of damages was a better solution.
The CoA bench of judges said the former employees were better off receiving damages instead of reinstatement as Barclays had made it clear that relations with the two had irretrievably broken down.
“Even though the employees would love to get their jobs back, we have to consider that it would be impossible for them to be under a company that does not want them therefore its only fair that we do our best for both,” said the judges.
The CoA ordered that the case be remitted back to the High Court for the assessment of damages to be paid to the former employees.
This was after Barclays had filed an appeal with the CoA challenging High Court Justice Lot Moroka’s judgment arguing that the employees could not be reinstated nor paid damages as they violated the company’s employment act.
The fired employees who until March 27, 2013 were employed by Barclays Botswana as managers were dismissed from their work on the basis that they breached the employment contract, but later fought successfully at the High Court.
The company’s attorney Stephen Vivian had argued that the matter be referred back to the High Court as in their view it had erred in its findings.
He said the court did not acknowledge problems that could arise from reinstating the former employees.
“The Judge ought to have found there was insufficient grounds for reinstatement and that he failed to clearly see that the termination was purely based on disciplinary basis,” he argued.
He said it was unfortunate that the employees were fired but indicated that reinstatement was completely out of the question especially that the relationship was sour and positions have been filled.
Vivian said the two waived their rights to a re-hearing by not attending it. The former employees’ attorney Tshiamo Rantao had pushed for the reinstatement arguing his clients were dismissed purely based on their membership of a union and not because of in competency.
He said the employees who acted under the Barclays Management Staff Union (BAMSU) were within their rights to voice employees’ concerns adding that they did not breach any contractual rules.
“The High Court through its findings was within its right to rule in favour of the employees by ordering the company to reinstate them and offer them paybacks” he said. Rantao further said the employees were fired without being given a re-hearing, which made it unlawful and further stressed that it was unlawful to punish union officer bearers for articulating worker’s concerns.
He argued that it was not the employees’ fault that the company have already filed the vacant positions and that the company foresees problems with reinstating the employees back to their positions.