BDF major fired for refusing command
Mpho Mokwape | Tuesday August 2, 2016 16:05
Until August 2011, Botho Baatweng was a BDF major in the Air Arm division. However, his tenure was terminated after he refused to go for further training, as he argued that he was due to retire from the army in due course.
Following numerous correspondence between him and his employer, Baatweng’s employment was terminated leading to him instituting a legal suit for wrongful dismissal by the BDF. He was seeking P1.4 million in damages.
In dismissing his appeal, the CoA bench said the challenges Baatweng had raised against the employer’s actions, which culminated in the termination of his employment, could not be sustained.
Justice Fredrick Brand said Baatweng had failed to challenge the commander’s decision that an officer who declines to attend courses offered to him would not be promoted and would therefore remain in his present rank.
He maintained that logically an officer of that kind would fall under army regulations where the commander could require the employee to retire with three months’ notice.
“It is clear that the circular left the appellant with no real choice in that he had only two options being to resign within 12 months or to be dismissed immediately thereafter presumably without the benefits associated with retirement,” Brand said. At the heart of the matter was that Baatweng who in April 2010 held the rank of major and had qualified as an aircraft engineer, was informed by someone acting for the commander that he had been selected to attend a Defence Command and Staff course to start in January the following year.
However, he decided not to attend the course informing the BDF of his decision in a letter dated August 3, 2010, in which he explained that he was “honoured” but could not attend as he intended to retire in due course. He later received another letter from the commander of the Air Arm in which he was reminded that he should separate from the BDF within 12 months, which he ignored.
Furthermore, another letter was also written to Baatweng reminding him of this planned separation and advising him to contact the pensions and gratuity staff. Baatweng raised no objection to the content, but instead applied for and eventually received the benefits due to him upon retirement.
He later wrote a letter of demand alleging that he had been wrongfully dismissed and claiming his salary for the next 14 years on the basis that he was 41-years-old when the dismissal occurred and that he was entitled to serve until the retirement age of 55.