State of our constitution Labour.net - CCMA - Employment industry

STATEMENT OF CLAIM AND FORMAL COMPLAINT - ACTIVE RECRUIT- Labour.net- ccma FAIZEL FARZEE- WECT15376-25 By: Mr Faizel Farzee

1. Introduction and Rights

I, Faizel Farzee, a South African citizen by birth, place on record that I am constitutionally entitled to certain fundamental rights, including but not limited to: The inherent right to dignity, which must be respected and protected (Section 10, Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996). The right to equality before the law and to equal protection and benefit of the law (Section 9). The right to fair labour practices (Section 23). In addition, I am not only an employee but also a husband of twenty years and father of three children, one of whom is currently completing matric. My livelihood and my family’s well-being depend upon my employment. It is therefore incumbent upon my employer to act with fairness, integrity, and humanity when exercising its authority over me.

2. Chronology of Events

2.1. Upon commencing employment with Active Recruit, I encountered an employee, Mr Abdul Sassman, whose behaviour towards me was intimidating, domineering, and aggressive. He repeatedly attempted to assert dominance through threatening statements, references to gangster associations, and an overall manner designed to instil fear. 2.2. Despite my attempts to disengage, Mr Sassman followed me to a different EXL office location, where his conduct continued. To defuse the situation, I engaged him in a calm, mature, and non-aggressive conversation. 2.3. Subsequently, on or about 8 August, I was informed via a message from Ms Vicky Stapelberg that a complaint had been lodged against me by Mr Sassman. I was advised not to return to work pending further discussion. 2.4. The following week, I was presented with a “part by mutual consent” form as an alternative to a formal hearing. I declined, as I had committed no misconduct and wished for due process to be followed. 2.5. During this period of suspension, rumours were spread about me, creating reputational harm, yet I was never furnished with proper particulars of these allegations.

3. The Hearing Process

3.1. I was summoned to what was styled as a “hearing inquiry.” However, this was not a fair process but a predetermined exercise designed to secure a dismissal. 3.2. The hearing was chaired in a manner that was hostile and biased. Evidence favourable to me, including CCTV footage and corroborating testimony regarding Mr Sassman’s prior aggression, was disregarded. 3.3. Witness testimony re**** upon by the company was demonstrably false, yet it was accepted without challenge. My wife, who attended via Teams, can attest to the aggressive and dismissive treatment I received during proceedings. 3.4. Ultimately, I was found guilty of “unprofessional conduct” based on a private conversation, despite being the party subjected to ************ and harassment. 3.5 The commissioner acted more as the company's prosecutor than chairperson 4. Company Bias and Use of External Agents

4.1. It is evident that Vocal Technology, in conjunction with its external labour consultants (Labour.net), conducted itself in a manner inconsistent with the Constitution and the Labour Relations Act. 4.2. Labour.net has a documented pattern of recommending outcomes that disproportionately favour employers, often in the absence of substantive grounds. This removes accountability from the employer and prejudices employees’ rights to fair recourse. 4.3. Precedent cases, including that of an employee, Firyal (Bella Casa), demonstrate this pattern of bias. Labour.net manufactured a charge of “irregular timekeeping” (before commencement of shifts) to justify dismissal. This is irrational, ********, and indicative of systemic prejudice.

5. Breach of Contract and Defamation

5.1. I entered into a one-year contract of employment with active recruitment. The premature termination of this contract without substantive grounds constitutes a breach. 5.2. Remedies sought include either: Reinstatement with full back-pay to the date of dismissal, or Payment of the full contract term instead of reinstatement. 5.3. Furthermore, defamatory statements and rumours circulated during this process caused reputational harm. This defamation, coupled with wrongful dismissal, compounds the damages suffered.

6. Broader Implications

6.1. This matter is not isolated. The conduct of Labour.net undermines employees’ constitutional rights, removes accountability from employers, and erodes trust in fair labour practices. 6.2. Such practices amount to systemic *******ion within labour relations and should be subject to urgent investigation, whether by the CCMA, the Department of Labour, or another competent authority. 6.3. Failure to address these practices results not only in harm to individual employees but also to their families and to the broader social fabric.

7. Conclusion and Relief Sought

I place this statement on record as a formal complaint and demand the following: That my ******** dismissal be set aside. That I be reinstated with retrospective effect or compensated in full for the balance of my contractual term. An investigation into Labour.net's practices should be initiated, particularly regarding their consistent bias against employees. That defamatory statements made against me be withdrawn and rectified in writing. Formal/legal rewrite of the factual narrative Statement of Facts The Complainant was employed by various private sector employers, most recently by a company that used the services of the entity trading as “labour.net.” On each occasion in which the Complainant’s employment ended, the employer referred the dispute to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (“CCMA”). In multiple matters handled by the CCMA in which labour.net was involved, the conciliation-arbitration procedure (“conarb”) was split at the employer’s request. During conciliation, the presiding commissioner encouraged the Complainant to abandon the referral rather than pursue arbitration. When the Complainant elected to proceed to arbitration, the commissioner permitted the employer to call multiple witnesses whose evidence the commissioner accepted in preference to the Complainant’s evidence. The Complainant contends that, in several matters, the employer’s case re**** upon manufactured allegations and orchestrated witness testimony. In the arbitration hearings, a legal representative for the employer presented oral argument and evidence that the Complainant describes as rehe****d and coercive. The ultimate arbitration awards were consistently in favour of the employers. The relief awarded to the Complainant, when any, was limited to a letter confirming employment rather than substantive remedies such as reinstatement, substantial compensation, or other appropriate relief. The Complainant further reports procedural irregularities including: (a) the deliberate omission of evidence tendered by the Complainant from the arbitration bundle and from the commissioner’s file; (b) compressed or otherwise inadequate hearing time allocated to the Complainant; and (c) a failure by the employer’s counsel and the commissioner to properly test the credibility and reliability of employer witnesses or to afford parity of time and process to the Complainant. The Complainant asserts that the employer and its agents used the CCMA process as a routinised vehicle to terminate employees whom they regarded as inconvenient. The Complainant alleges that this pattern has persisted across multiple employers and that, where labour.net has been engaged, the pattern is identical. The Complainant says that when the allegation underpinning the dismissal is examined objectively (for example, an allegedly “unprofessional” conversation), it does not amount to misconduct on any reasonable view, or in the alternative, any sanction short of dismissal would have been appropriate. The Complainant avers that the cumulative effect of these events has been devastating to his livelihood and reputation, and that the CCMA process in practice has displayed a systematic bias in favour of employers in cases handled in this manner. Expanded Statement of Employment History and Disputes 1. Capitec Bank Period of Employment: Approximately 3 years. Contributions and Achievements: Successfully resolved a major technical fault with the introduction of new chip cards. The defect prevented cards from being registered by the new card machines, causing the bank to lose thousands of rand daily. Despite international consultants from Israel being flown in, the issue remained unresolved until the Complainant identified and implemented a workaround sequence after three weeks of dedicated troubleshooting. Discovered a fault in one of Capitec’s banking contracts, which, once rectified, saved the company millions of rand. Events Leading to Termination: At the conclusion of employment, the employer presented a document for signature stating that “the late warning is closed” as it was allegedly the Complainant’s last day. The Complainant had not been late once during the period of employment. The employer subsequently altered schedules/attendance records to fabricate lateness, which was then used as grounds for dismissal. Dismissal Reason Given: Persistent lateness (fabricated). CCMA Outcome: Matter referred to the CCMA. Despite the evidence, the commissioner found in favour of Capitec Bank. Relief granted was limited to a confirmation letter of employment. Legal Issues: Substantively unfair dismissal (no genuine misconduct or incapacity). Procedurally unfair dismissal (altered records; no fair hearing). Potential *****: Fabrication of lateness records. Breach of trust and fair labour practices under section 23 of the Constitution and section 188 of the LRA. 2. Computacenter (via LabourNet involvement) Period of Employment: Approximately 5 years. Contributions and Achievements: Served on multiple accounts, providing technical breakdowns of policies, technologies, and solutions. Frequently deployed to struggling teams where performance was below standard. Successfully improved teams to the point of receiving international recognition. Generated numerous initiatives and ideas that led directly to company growth and efficiency. Took a leadership role in protecting workplace fairness by standing up for a colleague who was being harassed. Events Leading to Termination: Following the intervention in support of a harassed colleague, management allegedly conspired to remove the Complainant. A contrived allegation was placed on the Complainant’s worksheet, citing “gross negligence” for an act that had historically never led to dismissal for any other employee. Dismissal Reason Given: Gross negligence (fabricated/contrived). CCMA Outcome: Matter referred to CCMA with LabourNet acting on behalf of the employer. Same pattern observed: split con-arb, company presented multiple witnesses, commissioner discouraged continuation, and ultimately, the award was in favour of Computacenter. Relief provided: Only a letter confirming employment. Legal Issues: Substantively unfair dismissal (gross negligence allegation manufactured). Automatically unfair dismissal if retaliation for standing up against harassment (victimisation under LRA s187). Procedural unfairness (biased CCMA process, exclusion of employee evidence). Violation of the Protected Disclosures Act, if raising harassment is deemed whistleblowing. 3. Scottnet Period of Employment: 3/03/2024 - 08/08/2024 Contributions and Achievements: Provided technical and operational value to the company. Increased the workflow in Cape Town by making the IT infrastructure work optimally. Events Leading to Termination: Despite prior agreements, the Complainant was dismissed without substantive cause, seemingly due to the employer’s own personal feelings. Dismissal Reason Given: None communicated with clarity. CCMA Outcome: Matter still pending at the time of this statement. Anticipated repetition of prior pattern: split con-arb, evidence exclusion, employer witnesses, commissioner finds for company. Legal Issues: Substantively unfair dismissal (no valid reason given). Procedurally unfair dismissal (no charges, not allowing me to respond to whether the relationship was mendable, no opportunity to state a case). Violation of BCEA if notice and proper procedure were not followed. Cross-Cutting Pattern Observed Across all three employers, particularly where LabourNet represented the employer, the following consistent procedural defects and systemic biases were observed: Split con-arb at the employer’s request, delaying remedy and preventing immediate reinstatement. Commissioners are actively discouraging the continuation of cases. Employer-dominated witness line-ups often have 4–5 witnesses against the employee. Employee evidence was omitted or ignored in arbitration bundles. Awards are consistently in favour of the employer, regardless of the strength of the employee’s case. Relief is limited to letters of employment, without reinstatement or meaningful compensation.