Bribery

Good day

I hope all is well with you. I am writing to you in connection with the miscarriage of justice by the CCMA because bribes might be motivating such acts of aborting justice.

I lodged a complaint with the CCMA against Standard Bank of South Africa. Case number:GAJB 16943-23

I am Sikhumbuzo Hlophe. I want to discuss my concerns with you in connection with the award that might have been influenced by bribes.

The matter was in connection was in connection with being dismissed by Standard Bank of South Africa on the grounds of being absent because I was sick and sick notes were provided,no dispute about that and also no disputes was raised about the legitimacy of such documents and secondly Standard bank said that my level of not authentication of customer was high at 7% compared to the 2% expected. Therefore the ruling or the judgement was supposed to be based on the above 2 points not anything irrelevant. However, in the award an irrelevant ruling was made that is not based on the above 2 grounds and no rulings was made on the above except for the commissioner to repeat my words on the award.

On point 8 of the award the commissioner is saying that the contract was commenced on 04/08/2021 and this is incorrect. The contract commenced on 01 August 2022.

Point 10 of the award the reasons for challenging the decision of the employers is because the employer advised me that she ended my contract because I was absent for few days because I was sick but the contracts proves that I was entitled to sick leave and the employer agreed and never disputed that sicknotes were provided,therefore it is wrong for Standard bank to give you sick leave and then once you use them ,then they disadvantage you on such grounds,the second reason was because the employer advised that I am disadvantaged because my level of not authentication of customer was high at 7% compared to the 2%,nomcebo then contradicted herself on this because she further advised during arbitration that they checked 10 calls that is 2 calls per month to check whether you authenticate,supposed 1 of the calls I had not authenticated a customer,the level of not authenticating customer should be at 10% not 7%,therefore clearly this proves that she is lying when she said my level is at 7% as this is in contradiction.

Point 12 of the award the commissioner is also incorrect in saying that the documents were what they appeared to be,as credibility of the documents was challenged because the documents were manipulated and were prepared by the conflicted person who is Nomcebo Simelane.The commissioner ignored that and instead advocate for Standard bank in saying that they are what they appear to be . How can a conflicted person be asked to prepare documents that are going to be used against her and expect such person to prepare such documents properly,the commissioner was not naive but a bribe might have motivated because this was also brought to his attention during arbitration that the documents should have been prepared independently. It can be witnessed from the performance indicator that the document come from Nomcebo Simelane on the top of the document and Nomcebo was a conflicted person.

Sheila mistry

Sheila mistry was asked to comment whether at Standard bank is how things are done by giving people sick leave days and then disadvantage such person on such grounds at the end,and sheila made it clear and she was talking for Standard bank as a whole that is not how things are done at Standard bank,therefore what Nomcebo did was against standard bank policies and contracts as she breached my contract. The Commissioner failed to pick this up because a bribe might have motivated him not to pick it up as it can be seen that in all the award he is not independent,he advocates for Standard bank and everything I am challenging according to him it is madness as he suppressed all my arguments and advanced that of Standard bank.

Nomcebo Simelane

This is someone who was in breach of the contract. Nomcebo never said she was a manager for 9 years instead she said she was acting in the position for 9 years and was formally appointed in may. Therefore what the commissioner wrote is incorrect. The Commissioner further says that after i have accused the colleague of lying it was explained to me that she was not lying. The Commissioner is incorrect as in the emails it can be witnessed where I am asking for a meeting and nomcebo ask for one and at the end it was never set,then where was that explained to me. The Commissioner abort justice on this ,but also it must be remembered that the emails are irrelevant to the matter at hand as I was not fired for disrespect. The Commissioner was not supposed to entertain them on the grounds of irrelavance and there is nothing wrong about not sugarcoating,lies are lies,but I was wrong according to them because I never sugarcoated. The emails between mr Ivan and me,it can be witnessed that I apologized to him and he sincerely accepted my apology. Therefore to entertain such a matter is irrelevant because mr Ivan forgave me ,the commissioner said the apology is feeble because a bribe might be a motivating factor,although the apology was genuine from me and Ivan accepted the apology because it was genuine. The matter of e-mails is irrelevant at the end because the employer never fired me for disrespect but used the emails to defend her weak case,therefore it is clear that the commissioner entertained this because bribe might be the cause.

Point 27: The contract entitled me to sick leave and it is the responsibility of the manager to ensure that there are contingent plan in place to cover up for any person who fell ill or to cover up for any leave that a person is legally entitled to,it is absolute nonsense to say that people must not be absent at work even if they are sick because that will affect their presence at the workplace. He failed to pick up this because a bribe might have been taken. It must also be noted that the period taken into account for perfomance and criteria was january to may. The Commissioner never stated this because a bribe might have motivated this,the sick leave days on june and laptop lost on 3 June made it very clear that Nomcebo was inconsitent in applying the criteria and that was established and no one disputed the inconsistency but because a bribe might have been a motivation it was hidden and I was coached in April for authentication of customer after 80% of the period taken into account,hence set up for failure as I was not afforded the opportunity to improve.

On point 32 of the award is also not correct by saying that there were 8 indicators as Nomcebo made it clear in front of him that she gives me the benefit of doubt for the loss of laptop,hence he was supposed not to take into account loss of laptop and also the laptop was lost in June a period outside of the scope taken into account and the absentism was challenged because it has sick notes.

The Commissioner was not supposed to make any findings on perfomance and emails because that was irrevant but because of a bribe that might have been a motivation he looked on irrelevant things and ignore all the relevant things. No findings were made against what I was challenging instead at the matters that were irrelevant.

It must also be noted that after the matter had been dismissed,Pearl remained behind,this is the time that is suspected that she was negotiating for a bribe. Justice was aborted at the end.

Please investigate the commissioner for me.

Regards Sikhumbuzo

After I wrote the above to CCMA to investigate Livhuni nengovhela the commissioner who was suspected of taking bribes. They did not investigate all the points I had raised but the CCMA covered it up for him