Bergrivier Municipality faces backlash over soft punishment for sexual harassment

A 10-day unpaid suspension and a final written warning for an employee of the Bergrivier Local Municipality in Piketberg, Western Cape, have sparked outrage from the Western Cape Labour Court, which deemed the punishment "totally unacceptable."

The municipality sought to challenge this lenient penalty for Mr S, arguing that he should have been dismissed for his actions—a view echoed by the court.

Following a disciplinary hearing conducted under the South African Local Government Bargaining Council’s Disciplinary Procedure Collective Agreement (DPCA), Mr S was found guilty of serious sexual harassment allegations against a female colleague.

However, the chairperson who oversaw the proceedings under the DPCA, decided a suitable sanction is a 10-day suspension. The decision was binding on the municipality, but open to be challenged in the labour court.

The charges against Mr S related to two incidents where he transported a fellow employee, only identified as Mrs B, from Porterville to Piketberg with a council vehicle.

She complained that on the first occasion he had placed his hands on her breasts and on her private parts. According to her she told him to stop fondling her, but he simply continued doing it. 

The same happened on the second occasion, she said, but this time he also placed her hand on his private part, telling her that he was “ready” for her.

While Mr S vehemently denied the allegations, it was found to be true and it was found during his disciplinary hearing that he showed no remorse for his conduct.  

The labour court commented that it appeared that the chairperson at the disciplinary hearing seemed to appreciate the seriousness of the misconduct, he however declined to impose a sanction of dismissal.

This is because the municipality had not pertinently led evidence on its policy on sexual harassment and the breakdown of the trust relationship between employer and employee.

The chairperson went so far as to find that Mr S deserved to be dismissed and that management had let B down, yet it only suspended him for a few days.

The labour court said the chairperson clearly erred in finding, on the facts of this case, that the municipality was under an obligation to lead evidence on its sexual harassment policy and the breakdown of the trust relationship between employer and employee.

The court also noted that while it was not easy for her to testify about the events and despite robust cross-examination calling her version into question, the chairperson accepted that the sexual harassment had taken place exactly as she had described. 

The court said the 10-day suspension, coupled with a final warning induces a sense of shock.

Get your news on the go, click here to join the Cape Argus News WhatsApp channel.

Cape Argus