Gauteng High Court upholds protection order against manager for offensive language
Image: File
Repeated insults with the use of profane and demeaning language during a salary dispute with a colleague resulted in a line manager being slapped with a protection against harassment order, which he now tried to overturn, stating that his language simply constituted 'workplace banter'.
But the Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg, did not agree and turned down the appeal against the harassment order.
The court said words such as the 'f' word and calling someone an 'asshole' did not belong in the workplace.
Nonhlanhla Mabuza obtained the protection order in April against her line manager, Garth Roberts. Both work for a company known as Africa Rainbow Minerals.
Video Player is loading.
Play Video
Play
Unmute
Current Time
0:00
/
Duration
-:-
Loaded :
0%
Stream Type LIVE
Seek to live, currently behind live
LIVE
Remaining Time
-
0:00
This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque
Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps
Reset
restore all settings to the default values Done
Close Modal Dialog
End of dialog window.
Advertisement
Next
Stay
Close ✕
Ad loading
Mabuza joined the company in 2019 and was placed on a three-month probation period at a specified salary.
After serving her probation, she was confirmed permanently, but her salary was reduced by R3,000. No reasons were given to Mabuza for this reduction.
This discrepancy necessitated a meeting between her and Roberts, during which a representative of the human resources department was also present. The proceedings were recorded.
It is not disputed that Roberts told Mabuza during the meeting that she signed a 'f***ing' paper because she is an 'asshole'. The issue in the appeal is to determine whether these utterances constitute harassment, justifying a protection order against him.
Judge Percival Motha, during the appeal, inquired from counsel for Roberts whether it is proper for a white man to call a black woman an 'asshole' in this racially charged society. The answer was a clear 'no'.
Judge Majake Mabesele, who sat with Judge Motha on the appeal and who wrote the judgment, remarked that although the question raised with counsel is legitimate, the court is alive to the fact that the emphasis should not be placed on race in this matter.
'Instead, the emphasis should be placed on 'power'. Harassment at the workplace knows no race. It is about misuse of power, thereby violating a person's right to dignity, and a right not to be subjected to psychological torture,' Judge Mabesele said.
Roberts' lawyer, meanwhile, argued that the utterances made by his client, objectively viewed, were not of such an overwhelmingly oppressive nature as to make them oppressive and unreasonable.
He argued that Roberts was, at the time, attempting to assist Mabuza with a salary situation and that she thanked him for attending the meeting.
In his argument, the lawyer stressed the point that the word 'asshole' is regarded as workplace banter and could not have caused Mabuza serious distress.
However, the judge stated that this argument lacks merit.
'The word 'asshole' should be regarded as an insult in circumstances where a female is accused of wrongdoing by a male person. The word becomes extremely disturbing and causes serious fear and distress when uttered simultaneously with the 'f' word, as it transpired in the meeting between Mr Roberts and Ms Mabuza,' Judge Mabesele said.
He added that it is apparent from the entire recorded conversation that the word 'asshole' was uttered more than once and the 'f' word was uttered three times, despite protest by Mabuza, who was pleading for a salary adjustment.
Mabuza told the court the reason for her obtaining a protection order against him was not simply because he called her an 'asshole' or used the 'f' word.
'This is just to show how Mr Roberts is.'
But the court said logic dictates that the words that were uttered to her must have caused her serious distress.
zelda.venter@inl.co.za
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
3 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
After the Bell: The staggering size and stumbles of the colossal PIC
While so many of the Public Investment Corporation's investments are in listed entities and we can all see whether it's making good decisions, the problems come in with its unlisted investments where, perhaps, someone gets to play with a huge amount of money without a huge amount of attention. If it is true that compound interest is the 'eighth wonder of the world', then the Public Investment Corporation (PIC) must be its colossus. It is so staggeringly big that it almost defies comprehension. The PIC currently has more than R3-trillion in assets. And it controls about 10% of the JSE. The scale of it is so big that its investment decisions could not just make or break companies, they might even make or break entire industries in South Africa. It makes the proposed Transformation Fund that would invest R100-billion look like a tiddler by comparison. It is just that big. There are important reasons it got so big, but one of them must be its age. It was created in 1911. That's just one year after South Africa was formed as a nation state in a colonial project. Like Warren Buffett's investing career, the PIC is a really good example of how time in the market is such an important factor. At the same time, of course, as the number of government workers has increased (leading to many, many bitter fights), so has the money it has to manage. The Government Employees' Pension Fund is its main client – millions go from government employee salaries into the fund every month. Considering how much money we are talking about, it is quite strange that we don't talk about it more. One of the reasons for that is so many of its investments are in listed entities. Basically it is putting money into companies listed on the JSE. And that means we can all see whether or not it's making good decisions. This is a kind of forced transparency (in its 2024 annual financial statements it flags 'transparency' as its first pillar of governance'). And by and large, it works. The problems come in, obviously, in its unlisted investments. This is where it makes decisions that we cannot see so easily. And I suspect we are going to see a lot more attention on this soon. On Monday, News24 published an important story saying that the acting head of the manager's unlisted investments unit, Thabiso Moshikara, is being accused of trying to get a R3-million bribe from someone whose company is being funded by the PIC. The person making the claim, Ralebala Mampeule, even claims Moshikara came to his house with 'unidentified males'. This must have come as a huge shock to the PIC and they will now have to investigate thoroughly. The problem is that it could take quite a while to know for sure what happened. Unfortunately, we now live in a society where it's entirely possible that someone offered Moshikara money for his influence, and when he refused, decided to simply make something up to get rid of him. Or it could all be true. At the same time, the PIC has recently been under fire over the Daybreak Farms fiasco. There it was quite clear that some of the directors and managers were just extracting money from a failing enterprise. While workers were protesting because they had not been paid and chickens were suffering because they were not being fed, the chair, Bojane Segooa, hung on until the last minute. The moment she received a payment of R625,000, she resigned. Daybreak is wholly owned by the PIC. Sunday Times journalist Sabelo Skiti had been warning us for years and years that this would happen at Daybreak. And his reporting and warnings were ignored by the PIC. This has infuriated Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana to the point where he has instituted an inquiry into the unlisted fund. I've never understood why an institution as massive as the PIC would not act when someone like Skiti reports on Daybreak in the way he did. It surely has the resources to monitor its unlisted investments. It is negligence that borders on the criminal to allow this to happen. I would think that its main customers, government workers, would be the first to shout and scream when this happens. It is their money that is going up in smoke. But they don't, because they're going to be fine. The pensions they receive are a defined benefit, meaning they'll receive the same amount of money no matter what happens to the PIC's investments. This is probably a very good thing. Workers should not suffer in their old age because, for example, Markus Jooste took everyone for a ride at Steinhoff. But it does mean that perhaps, just perhaps, someone gets to play with a huge amount of money without a huge amount of attention. It does look like the PIC is going to change slightly. There will probably be a new system to appoint its chair (since 2021, the law has been that the finance minister can appoint a deputy finance minister to the position of PIC chair). And I think there will be more demands for more transparency. We should all know how the PIC makes its decisions in the unlisted space. There are many advantages to being a colossus; you can take a lot of pain and keep trucking. But you are impossible to hide. And so we will always want to know what is going on behind the scenes. DM
TimesLIVE
10 hours ago
- TimesLIVE
Sassa encourages honesty from grant beneficiaries during income reviews
The South African Social Security Agency (Sassa) continues its phased review of social grant recipients, urging beneficiaries to be honest and transparent during the income verification process. Multiple pensioners did not receive their July grants after the agency discovered what it called 'additional income' in their bank accounts. Brenton van Vrede, Sassa's executive manager for grants administration, told journalists on Monday that for normal social grants such as the older person's grant, disability grant and child support grant the focus is not just on how much money appears in a bank account. 'We are encouraging people to disclose. It's not about how much is in the account. It's about understanding the source of that income so we can test whether the person qualifies for the full grant amount, a partial amount or doesn't qualify. 'Maintenance is considered income in terms of the social assistance regulations, but each case is individually assessed.' He emphasised that honesty in the application, including providing three months of bank statements and explaining each source of income, is essential to ensure people are assessed fairly. Van Vrede noted most grant recipients will probably still qualify, even if they receive small amounts of financial support from family members. 'The qualifying income threshold for the older person's grant is quite high, more than R8,900 per month. So, if someone is receiving R2,000 from their children, it's unlikely to result in disqualification unless they have additional income, such as from a pension fund or rental income,' he said. Sassa CEO Themba Matlou addressed confusion about the social relief of distress (SRD) grant, maintenance income and the process by which reviews are triggered. He said no beneficiaries have been suspended but confirmed the agency is reviewing about 210,000 beneficiaries out of 19-million, a small fraction, after red flags were raised about possible ineligibility due to employment or other income sources. 'We have not experienced a situation where someone has been verified and not been paid. If the person no longer qualifies in terms of the legislation, we will suspend the grant but there hasn't [yet] been any suspension.' Matlou noted that means testing varies depending on the type of grant. For child support grants, it is the primary caregiver's income that is assessed, not the child's. In contrast, the SRD (Covid-19) grant involves more stringent, automated income checks via bank verification to determine eligibility. 'With SRD, we verify through the banks whether there's consistent money that comes through. But for normal grants, the means test usually applies to the primary caregiver only.' To reduce panic and long queues at Sassa offices, Matlou said the agency is developing a self-review online platform so grant recipients can review their own information without visiting offices. Hotspot offices with high volumes are being staffed with additional personnel to handle reviews more efficiently. 'We've only sent out the first rounds of notifications in June. We're still within the review time frame. Once we pass that, and if clients haven't come forward, then suspension will occur not necessarily because they don't qualify but because they failed to do the review.' The agency will publish data on the number of beneficiaries reviewed, the outcomes of those reviews and the number of grants continued or cancelled by the end of July.
IOL News
10 hours ago
- IOL News
Gauteng High Court upholds protection order against manager for offensive language
The Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg, ruled that the use of profane language at work towards a colleague is not workplace banter. Image: File Repeated insults with the use of profane and demeaning language during a salary dispute with a colleague resulted in a line manager being slapped with a protection against harassment order, which he now tried to overturn, stating that his language simply constituted 'workplace banter'. But the Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg, did not agree and turned down the appeal against the harassment order. The court said words such as the 'f' word and calling someone an 'asshole' did not belong in the workplace. Nonhlanhla Mabuza obtained the protection order in April against her line manager, Garth Roberts. Both work for a company known as Africa Rainbow Minerals. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad loading Mabuza joined the company in 2019 and was placed on a three-month probation period at a specified salary. After serving her probation, she was confirmed permanently, but her salary was reduced by R3,000. No reasons were given to Mabuza for this reduction. This discrepancy necessitated a meeting between her and Roberts, during which a representative of the human resources department was also present. The proceedings were recorded. It is not disputed that Roberts told Mabuza during the meeting that she signed a 'f***ing' paper because she is an 'asshole'. The issue in the appeal is to determine whether these utterances constitute harassment, justifying a protection order against him. Judge Percival Motha, during the appeal, inquired from counsel for Roberts whether it is proper for a white man to call a black woman an 'asshole' in this racially charged society. The answer was a clear 'no'. Judge Majake Mabesele, who sat with Judge Motha on the appeal and who wrote the judgment, remarked that although the question raised with counsel is legitimate, the court is alive to the fact that the emphasis should not be placed on race in this matter. 'Instead, the emphasis should be placed on 'power'. Harassment at the workplace knows no race. It is about misuse of power, thereby violating a person's right to dignity, and a right not to be subjected to psychological torture,' Judge Mabesele said. Roberts' lawyer, meanwhile, argued that the utterances made by his client, objectively viewed, were not of such an overwhelmingly oppressive nature as to make them oppressive and unreasonable. He argued that Roberts was, at the time, attempting to assist Mabuza with a salary situation and that she thanked him for attending the meeting. In his argument, the lawyer stressed the point that the word 'asshole' is regarded as workplace banter and could not have caused Mabuza serious distress. However, the judge stated that this argument lacks merit. 'The word 'asshole' should be regarded as an insult in circumstances where a female is accused of wrongdoing by a male person. The word becomes extremely disturbing and causes serious fear and distress when uttered simultaneously with the 'f' word, as it transpired in the meeting between Mr Roberts and Ms Mabuza,' Judge Mabesele said. He added that it is apparent from the entire recorded conversation that the word 'asshole' was uttered more than once and the 'f' word was uttered three times, despite protest by Mabuza, who was pleading for a salary adjustment. Mabuza told the court the reason for her obtaining a protection order against him was not simply because he called her an 'asshole' or used the 'f' word. 'This is just to show how Mr Roberts is.' But the court said logic dictates that the words that were uttered to her must have caused her serious distress.
