EPTC CHARGES MANAGER NQOBILE WITH 5 COUNTS

MBABANE – EPTC has charged its suspended Corporate Affairs Manager, Nqobile Magagula, with four counts.

The charges are gross misconduct, dishonesty, gross dishonesty and misappropriation.  Eswatini Posts and Telecommunications Corporation (EPTC), as per notice to attend the disciplinary enquiry, dated April 9, 2024, notified Magagula of the charges that have been preferred against her. She was also requested to appear at a formal disciplinary enquiry. The first charge is gross misconduct. In this charge, EPTC stated that it has prima facie evidence against Magagula, which allegedly implicates her in this offence in that she is alleged to have used the employer’s property and allowed third parties to use the said property for their benefit.

Policies

This, according to EPTC, was in contravention of the internal policies and the corporation’s Disciplinary Code.  The specifics of the misconduct are that on October 24 and 25, 2023, Magagula allegedly unlawfully permitted, through neglect, a third party (Zinokysundays) to have access and to utilise the corporation’s Facebook page for their own benefit, in contravention of EPTC policies. Magagula is accused of having administered for an undetermined period the corporation’s Facebook page through unaccredited credentials, much against the policies of EPTC.

In the second charge of dishonesty, Magagula, in breach of her duty of good faith towards her employer, allegedly failed to disclose her involvement in a private business known as Zinoky Investments, which she operated in conjunction with members of her family when there was a duty to make such disclosure. She was informed by the employer that there was prima facie evidence implicating her in the offence of conflict of interest, in that she purportedly failed to disclose to the employer her involvement in the business known as Zinoky Investments. She was said to have, in certain circumstances, had a duty to disclose such involvement, particularly when the said entity conducted business with EPTC in its social responsibility programmes. In the third charge, Magagula has been charged with gross dishonesty, in that when requested by management to share information and access credentials to the Facebook page, with the sole intention to mislead the corporation, she allegedly provided untruthful details on the matter.

Management

The specifics of her misconduct are that she  alleged to management that she had no means of accessing the EPTC Facebook page in that she had forgotten the password due to a change of laptops. She is purported to have later alleged that the EPTC Facebook page had been hacked by persons unknown to her. These statements, according to EPTC, were objectively false in that Magagula allegedly intended to mislead the management as to the true state of affairs. “You concealed to management that in fact the EPTC Facebook page had been subsumed under a Facebook page known as Zinokysundays, which you had accessed on a number of previous occasions.

“You alleged that the EPTC Facebook page had been unlawfully accessed or hacked by individuals unknown to you. This statement was objectively false as it transpired that you had personally, on October 25, 2023, added the individual that is identified as the alleged hacker to the Facebook page of Zinokysundays,” reads the notice to attend the disciplinary hearing.
The fourth charge is that of misappropriation and or unauthorised use of the corporation’s property (Facebook page) for personal gain and/or allowing third parties without authorisation to use it for personal gain to the detriment and prejudice of EPTC.

According to the notice to attend the disciplinary enquiry, Magagula was required to present herself to the disciplinary hearing and answer to the charges against her, failing which she would be deemed to have admitted to being guilty of the offences. Magagula ran to the Industrial Court on Monday to file an urgent application, which was to be heard yesterday, for an order declaring the disciplinary hearing against her as being in violation of the terms and conditions of her employment. She also wants the court to review and set aside the decision of the Chairperson of the hearing, Ndumiso Mamba, of refusing to recuse himself from the proceedings, which is allegedly in violation of the disciplinary and grievance procedure.

Hearing

She also prayed for an order interdicting EPTC and Mamba from continuing with the hearing pending finalisation of these court proceedings. The matter is before Judge Velaphi Dlamini. The court interdicted the corporation from proceeding with the disciplinary hearing, pending the finalisation of the matter in court. Magagula is represented by Banele Gamedze of Musa M. Sibandze Attorneys, while Zweli Jele of Robinson Bertram appears for EPTC. In her founding affidavit, Magagula informed the court that her stay at EPTC had not been rosy at the hands of the managing director (MD). She said for purposes of continuity and being able to put bread on the table for her family, ‘I had to navigate my way through the unbearable working conditions’.

   “A number of my duties were removed from my office and I was deprived of a number of my contractual benefits. I have been placed at a position whereby I had to justify why I was getting certain benefits, which benefits were never bestowed unto myself by me, but by the first respondent,” submitted Magagula. She told the court that on December 6, 2023, after she had been suspended pending investigations, she wrote to her employer complaining about unfair labour practices against her at the hands of the corporation.
She said on December 14, 2023, she received a response from the corporation, ‘which was rather dismissive and the first respondent took a defensive approach, without having the issues resolved’.

“May I place it on record that all my complaints were based on an existing contract of employment, however, the first respondent downplayed the issues as if they were a result of a verbal gentlemen’s agreement. “In November 2023, I was suspended by the first respondent, through the office of the company secretary. The suspension was to last for a period of 15 days and I was expected to resume my duties after the 15 days.

Suspension

“After the 15 days, nothing was communicated to me in so far as myself having to assume duties, save for the first respondent informing me that my suspension was being extended up until I receive a letter from the first respondent (EPTC) inviting me to show cause why I should not be disciplined for alleged several acts of misconduct.” She pointed out that inasmuch as they had almost four months to investigate, she was expected to respond in writing within a day. According to Magagula, on February 13, 2024, she raised a concern of the short notice, but was able to respond to the allegations contained therein.  She said on April 2, 2024, she received a notice signed by one Bongani Mtshali, in his capacity as the Company Secretary. The notice was inviting her to a hearing to be heard on April 9, 2024 at 9am.

Meanwhile, EPTC Head of Human Resources Nompumelelo Ngabisa Kunene said Magagula was employed as a Corporate Affairs Manager, which meant that she fell within the managerial cadre. Kunene said disciplinary action against managerial employees required that certain safeguards be put in place in order to reinforce the fairness of the process. Magagula had stated that there were people who were senior to her, who could have chaired the disciplinary hearing. She stated that principles such as collegiality were paramount considerations. According to Kunene, it was not advisable to have other managers of equal or senior rank called upon to preside over disciplinary proceedings against fellow managers. “The outsourcing of disciplinary processes against managerial employees is encouraged for purposes of promoting transparency, fairness, mitigating against bias, and according to the manager, the right to obtain the best possible representation.

Experience

“The appointment of an external chairperson to preside over a disciplinary hearing involving a manager is imperative because that individual is less susceptible to influence by internal dynamics, has adequate experience and skill to carry out the disciplinary hearing and is best placed to promote the principle of fairness. “Similarly, it is undesirable at managerial level to have a fellow manager to carry out the prosecution or initiation of the disciplinary hearing. Once again, considerations of collegiality, familiarity militate against the notion of having one manager prosecute another,” said Kunene.

She added that there was always the added consideration that ‘not only have these people enjoyed a collegial relationship, but on account of the fact that the outcome of the hearing cannot be predetermined, there is always the risk that they may have to continue working with one another even after the disciplinary process’.  She said for this reason, and in the interest of fairness, it was advisable to appoint an external initiator. “Managerial employees are entitled to the best representation that they can obtain. It is equally unpleasant for a managerial employee to have to approach other managers to represent her at a disciplinary hearing. There are a number of factors that historically have supported this proposition. “Generally, fellow managers are loath to involve themselves in disciplinary proceedings in the form of representing co-managers.” The matter is pending in court.

Post your comment

Your name:

Your e-mail address:

Add your comments:

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Image:

Code: