A senior eThekwini Municipality official dashed to the Labour Court in Durban this week to prevent the City from demoting her over a qualifications row. The City’s head of health, Rosemary van Heerden, brought the urgent application for an interdict after she was informed that she needed to revert to the former position of deputy health head by July 1.

Court papers show that the decision to demote her came after an investigation found that she had been erroneously promoted to the senior post. When the matter came before the court on Monday, an order was taken by consent of the parties. In terms of the order, van Heerden is allowed to remain in her post while the matter is heard in court.

The consent order states that the application was adjourned until August 25 for arguments, and the municipality is directed to hold her demotion in abeyance pending the finalisation of the application. The municipality must deliver any replying affidavits on or before July 14.

At the centre of the issue is the allegation that van Heerden did not have the required qualifications for the senior post when she was interviewed and appointed. The matter was reported to the City Integrity and Investigations Unit (CIIU), which found that van Heerden did not possess the necessary qualifications — a Master’s in Public Health or a Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery — at the time of the interview. Van Heerden had disclosed on her CV that she was enrolled for her Master’s degree but had not yet completed it.

The CIIU had recommended that disciplinary action be instituted against the four officials who had shortlisted and appointed van Heerden and that the municipality seek legal advice on the status of her appointment.

In her affidavit to support the court application, she described her pending demotion as a violation of her rights. She stated that she was essentially given a choice between a demotion and running the risk of losing her job. She was informed that if she declined the demotion, then she would have to wait to be placed for six months, and if she was not placed in that period, the retrenchment process would begin.

In her application, she stated that the matter was urgent and she was seeking immediate relief to protect her rights against unfair labour practices, which are under active and unlawful threat by the municipality acting in flagrant disregard of labour laws.

“The conduct of the respondent is unlawful and warrants intervention. Unless the respondent is restrained from doing so, I will be demoted from my position as Director of Health, which would have a detrimental effect on my financial well-being,” she stated.

Providing background to the matter, she said that in 2021 she had applied for the Head of Health Unit and was appointed in April 2021. “In 2022, I faced disciplinary action and was charged with misconduct. It was alleged that in my application for the position of Head of Health, I confirmed that I had met the essential requirements for the post, whereas I had not yet attained a NQF level 8 in public health. I was found not guilty of the charges brought against me, and consequently, the employment relationship between the respondent and I continued.”

She said that between her acquittal on the misconduct charge and this year, there were other developments. In March this year, there was a discussion in council regarding the City’s structure that was to be implemented. She said she was called to a meeting with her boss and members of the Human Resources Unit and was informed that the meeting was a “consultation pertaining to her appointment.”

“I found this to be very strange and confusing since I had been in the position for four years, and further to that, I had been found not guilty of any misconduct.” She then requested the CIIU report.

On May 30, she was called to another meeting by her superiors. She attended the meeting with her union representative and was informed that she would be moved back to her previous position. On June 18, she received a letter detailing her demotion.

“I was simply told that on July 1, I would revert back to my old position, which I argue is a demotion that constitutes unfair labour practice.” She argued that placing her in her old position is a demotion to which she did not consent, and there was no meaningful discussion before the decision to demote her was taken. She argues that demoting her could cause her to suffer reputational harm.

EThekwini Municipality’s spokesperson Gugu Sisilana said the municipality respects the rule of law. “To be more accurate, the matter regarding Ms van Heerden is held in abeyance pending the finalisation of her court application. The municipality will act in line with the provisions of the court order, which was taken by consent,” she said.

THE MERCURY

Source link