Latest news with #LabourCourt
The Citizen
a day ago
- Business
- The Citizen
Labour court grants municipality stay of enforcement
The court noted the municipality had properly anticipated the need for a stay application from the outset of the review proceedings. Ngqushwa Local Municipality has won permission in the Labour Court in Gqeberha to delay paying a fired employee R700 152 while it challenges the order in court. Acting Judge Coen De Kock also approved the cash-strapped municipality's request to provide only R150 000 as security instead of the standard 24-month remuneration requirement. The municipality disagreed with an arbitration ruling that ordered it to rehire employee B Mangesi and pay him R700 152 in backpay. Background of the dispute The case centres on an arbitration award issued by the second respondent, Ntombekhaya Sesani, on 13 May 2025. The award reinstated employee B Mangesi, represented by the South African Municipal Workers' Union (Samwu), effective from 26 May 2025. The municipality was ordered to pay R700 152 in backpay by 23 May 2025. Ngqushwa Local Municipality filed for review of the award on 20 May 2025, well within the prescribed six-week period. The municipality immediately flagged its intention to seek a stay of enforcement and permission to provide reduced security. According to the judgment, the municipality was served with a certified award on 18 June 2025, enabling enforcement proceedings. ALSO READ: Man sentenced to life for murder of KZN ward councillor After filing a security bond of R150 000 on 19 June, the municipality's attorneys requested an undertaking from the employee's legal team that enforcement would not proceed. When the seven-day deadline expired on 30 June without response, the employee's attorney stated the municipality was 'at liberty to approach the court on an urgent basis for appropriate relief.' Court finds application urgent De Kock ruled that the application was genuinely urgent given the timeline of events. The court noted the municipality had properly anticipated the need for a stay application from the outset of the review proceedings. 'The applicant's actions in the way they anticipated the need to ask for a stay and the need to seek an exemption from the security to be furnished in terms of section 145 (8) are commended by this court,' De Kock stated. ALSO READ: Ex-municipal manager linked to Magaqa's killing remains behind bars, ANCYL responds Additionally, the court emphasised that urgency was not self-created by the municipality. De Kock found that urgency arose only when it became clear the employee would pursue enforcement despite the timely review application and provision of security, albeit at a reduced amount. Stay of enforcement granted The court granted the stay application, finding no reason to refuse it given the municipality's compliance with procedural requirements. De Kock noted there was no indication that the review proceedings were brought to frustrate the enforcement of the award. The court accepted that failure to grant the stay would severely prejudice the municipality. Assets could be attached and sold potentially below market value, while the municipality's ability to deliver services to residents would be impacted. 'The applicant will suffer irreparable harm if the enforcement of the award is not stayed,' the judgment stated. ALSO READ: Zuma and MK party case should've started in High Court, ConCourt hears [VIDEOS] The court noted the municipality had conducted a thorough investigation into what security amount it could afford without affecting operations. This distinguished the case from others where litigants arbitrarily decide on security amounts without justification. Reduced security approved De Kock exercised discretion under section 145(7) of the Labour Relations Act to accept the R150 000 security as sufficient. The court found no reason to reject the municipality's determination of what it could afford without interrupting constitutional and statutory obligations to provide municipal services. The judgment referenced section 152(1)(b) of the constitution, which requires municipalities to provide services to communities. The court was satisfied that the municipality has sufficient assets to comply with the award if the review application fails. It made no order as to costs. READ NEXT: Cop and prosecutor get bail in R1.6 million extortion case
Irish Independent
a day ago
- Business
- Irish Independent
Security fears behind Elon Musk's controversial ultimatum to staff, senior X executive says
Lauren Wegman, a senior HR director, said the message was an attempt to give Twitter workers an opportunity to resign with severance, if that was what they wanted to do. She said her understanding is that Mr Musk was reading negative comments on Twitter and internal messaging platform, Slack, and came up with the email. Ms Wegman said managers needed to move fast, as employees had access to data centres, algorithms and financial information. She claimed some individuals were openly saying that they wished to harm the company. The HR executive also accepted there could have been more clarity for workers in documents that explained Mr Musk's email, and information regarding benefits was 'not ideal'. Ms Wegman, who is based near Atlanta in Georgia, was giving evidence during an appeal by X of a record award of €550,131 to former Dublin-based executive Gary Rooney. Last year, adjudication officer Michael MacNamee found that Twitter unfairly dismissed Mr Rooney. The former Twitter employee did not respond to the tech billionaire's email in November 2022. In his email, Mr Musk asked workers to click a link to make a choice between an 'extremely hardcore' future under his leadership or resign with severance pay. Twitter was rebranded to X in July 2023 after Mr Musk's takeover of the social media platform. During cross-examination, Padraic Lyons SC, for Mr Rooney, asked Ms Wegman if Mr Musk was asked to come along to give evidence at the Labour Court. ADVERTISEMENT Ms Wegman said she did not know if he was asked to be there. Mr Lyons put it to her that Mr Rooney had no way of knowing under Twitter 2.0 whether 'hardcore' meant working through weekends. Ms Wegman said her personal 'take' on this was that she was already doing it. He said Mr Rooney had no way of knowing what his benefits would entail and asked if he was supposed to ferret out this information before a tight deadline. Mr Lyons said HR should have explained what it meant to make the remotest attempt to be reasonable towards its employees. Ms Wegman said that in November 2022 it was 'all hands on deck', and they had all jumped in to do what we could to 'keep the ship afloat'. She said she would not describe it as a bad time, but a difficult time. Mr Lyons said Mr Musk's 'bombshell' email was the very definition of an ultimatum. He said a timescale was imposed and the consequence was that employment would come to an end. Ms Wegman said she did not believe that Mr Rooney had anything to do with the posts that posed a security threat that she referred to, and none of the posts she saw had his name on them. She said the email would help staff who wanted to depart as they would get severance pay, as opposed to resigning without severance. However, she said the employer did not have insight or control over who was leaving or staying, so were left with skill gaps. Ms Wegman said the email offered staff a way to get out of the company Mr Lyons said Mr Rooney did not submit any decision, but the employer decided to bring his employment to an end. He said the only rational interpretation of that is that he was dismissed by his employer. Ms Wegman accepted that he did not write 'I resign'. She said it would have been nice to have a 'no' box in the email. Mr Lyons said it would have been better if there had been a 'can't decide' box. Chair of the court Louise O'Donnell asked Ms Wegman how managers knew they were going to attract those who raised security concerns with the severance offer. Ms Wegman accepted they could stay, but the email offered them a way to get out of the company. Meanwhile, the court heard that Twitter '1.0' was a very fun place to work with great perks including ping-pong tables, meditation rooms, meals cooked by celebrity chefs and visits by 'very important Tweeps'. Ms Wegman listed the benefits workers enjoyed while giving evidence. But she told how the company ended up in a 'terrible, terrible financial situation' that led to drastic cost-cutting three years ago. She told Cathy Smith, SC for X, that Twitter is known among employees as Twitter 1.0 before its acquisition by Mr Musk in 2022. She said she believes the takeover was the largest public to private company acquisition of all time. Ms Wegman told Ms Smith that staff had a hashtag 'love where you work' that was very much felt and lived by them. X denies Mr Rooney was dismissed and further claims made by him under payment of wages laws relating to a performance bonus. The hearing is set to resume at a date that has yet to be decided.
The Irish Sun
3 days ago
- Business
- The Irish Sun
Elon Musk's Twitter takeover created ‘uncertainty and fear' in Irish staff, former executive tells court
THE takeover of Twitter by billionaire businessman Elon Musk in 2022 created 'uncertainty and fear' among staff after they were given less than 48 hours to make a decision about their future with the company, the Labour Court has heard. A former senior executive in the company's 2 Mr Rooney described the change after the billionaire's takeover as 'fairly chaotic' Credit: MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images Mr Rooney described the change in the business after the billionaire's takeover as 'fairly chaotic'. The claim was made during an appeal by Twitter International against a ruling by the Workplace Relations Commission that it should pay a record award of €550,131 in compensation to Mr Rooney after ruling that he had been unfairly dismissed from his job. Mr Rooney is separately appealing the award amount and claiming the figure should be €689,406 to represent the maximum sum of two years' remuneration. He estimates his ongoing monthly loss at €16,753. The Labour Read more in News Mr Rooney, who was Director of Source to Pay with Twitter, claims the company decided he had resigned when he failed to click a button requiring him to agree new unspecified pay and conditions within a short deadline in response to an e-mail entitled 'A Fork in the Road' from Mr Musk on November 16, 2022. However, Twitter maintains that Mr Rooney was never dismissed and it was perfectly clear that he was choosing to leave the organisation when he decided not to click a 'Yes' button. Twitter is also disputing that restricted stock units awarded on a discretionary basis should be part of the calculation of his remuneration and claims Mr Rooney's estimated losses are 'wildly inaccurate.' In evidence, Mr Rooney said he never considered that he had resigned from the company. MOST READ IN THE IRISH SUN He claimed Mr Musk's takeover of the company was 'very consequential' as there were rumours of substantial layoffs among its workforce. He said: 'The prevailing mood was anxiety and fear about what could come down the road." Trump warns Elon Musk he could be forced out of US as he threatens to unleash DOGE 'monster' to 'eat' tech billionaire The three-person Labour Court division, chaired by Louise O'Donnell, heard 50 per cent of Twitter's global staff were made redundant within two weeks, while Mr Rooney had no time to argue a case for keeping his own team of nine employees. He noted that all decisions were being made by a small team of people from other companies owned by Mr Musk, such as Mr Rooney told his counsel, Padraic Lyons SC, that an instruction to stop all payments to suppliers as well as expenses to staff resulted in a 'very stressful' and 'very emotional time'. He recalled seeing Mr Musk's e-mail for the first time when he was on a DART at around 8am on November 16, 2022. 'EXTREMELY HARDCORE' He said: 'I really didn't know what to think or what it would mean." In the e-mail, staff were told that they would need to be 'extremely hardcore' in building 'Twitter 2.0' and 'only exceptional performance will constitute a passing grade." Anyone who did not click 'yes' by 10pm Irish time the following day would receive three months' severance. Although he always regarded himself as high performing and someone who worked long hours, Mr Rooney said he did not know if he would make the passing grade. 'CONFUSION AND DISBELIEF' He pointed out he received another document at 2.19am on November 17, 2022 which sought to clarify issues about Mr Musk's e-mail. Mr Rooney said it seemed to have been sent because the e-mail did not seem like an official communication from a head of an organisation and staff had regarded it with 'confusion and disbelief.' He did not know what he was being asked to sign up to and there was no chain of command from which he could get further information. Mr Rooney said he expected his work hours would be extended and he would be asked to work very late into the night and through weekends which he was not prepared to do. WORK COMPUTER ACCESS CUT OFF He told the hearing that a webinar hosted from San Francisco on November 16, 2022 had provided no extra useful information but that Mr Musk expected a lot from his staff. The message was that Twitter's owner was a great person and everything he did was for the betterment of humanity, Mr Rooney recalled. He claimed workers were told that they should be enthusiastic about working for the businessman 'because of the person that he was.' The Labour Court heard that Mr Rooney's access to his work computer system was cut off in the middle of the night on November 17, 2022. FAILURE TO RESPOND CLAIMS He claimed Twitter had failed to reply to him within three days as promised when he had complained that he had not resigned or even seen any separation agreement. In correspondence on December 7, 2022, he was informed that the company was treating his decision not to click the 'Yes' button as him serving notice to resign. Mr Rooney said further letters from his solicitor to Twitter did not receive any response. He claimed he was given inadequate notice to make a significant decision about his career. 'I DON'T THINK THAT WAS REASONABLE' He said: 'To have 12 hours to make a decision of that magnitude – I don't think that was reasonable." Mr Rooney gave evidence that he applied for at least 68 other positions before securing alternative employment with a large financial institution nine months later. The Labour Court heard that his current total remuneration in his new job is €135,000, including a basic salary of €109,000. Under cross-examination by counsel for Twitter, Cathy Smith SC, Mr Rooney accepted it was clear that he needed to click 'Yes' if he wanted to stay working with the company. DISAGREED WITH PRINCIPLE However, he claimed it was not just if you wanted to stay but stay under new conditions which were unclear. He said: 'I did not know what pressing 'Yes' meant." Mr Rooney accepted that no threat had been made to employees but said he disagreed with the principle of what was being done in the e-mail. Ms Smith said he had also posted messages to colleagues that he was leaving the company and the reality was that he did not want to work for a company owned by Mr Musk. 'NOT THAT BLACK AND WHITE' However, Mr Rooney replied that it was 'not that black and white' as he had been unhappy many times over the years with the direction of Twitter's leadership but he had stuck it out. He stressed he would have returned to work if access to his computer system had not been cut. In an opening submission, Mr Lyons said Mr Rooney had been an exemplary employee with long and distinguished service over nine years with Twitter. However, the barrister said Mr Musk's acquisition of the company had resulted in a 'profound attack on established norms' and an attempt to dismantle staff entitlements. 'TOTALLY EXTRAORDINARY' He claimed the 'Fork in the Road' e-mail was 'totally extraordinary and unprecedented.' Mr Lyons described what happened as 'a paradigm case of unfair dismissal.' However, Ms Smith disputed that Mr Rooney had been dismissed and noted his role had not been identified as redundant, despite a significant reduction in the company's workforce. The barrister highlighted how the company's difficulties had begun before Mr Musk's takeover in 2022. HEARING TO RESUME She observed that Mr Rooney was the only person to claim he had been unfairly dismissed and to be confused about what the e-mail had meant. Ms Smith said he had also never raised a grievance before he left his employment with Twitter on December 18, 2022. She also noted that payments to suppliers and expenses to staff had been paused to allow a complete audit of such payments to be carried out. The Labour Court heard Twitter's global workforce has been reduced from 8,000 to just over 1,000, while the number of staff in its Dublin office has fallen from 270 to just over 100. The hearing was adjourned and will resume on Wednesday when it is expected to conclude. 2 Elon Musk's Twitter takeover caused 'uncertainty and fear', Gary Rooney told a court Credit: Colin Keegan/Collins
Irish Independent
3 days ago
- Business
- Irish Independent
Irish Twitter worker claims he was given ultimatum to sign up to new reality of platform, tribunal told as company challenges €550,000 payout
LATEST | The social media giant will argue that Gary Rooney made a 'conscious decision' not to click 'yes' in response to an email from Elon Musk, knowing it would lead to his resignation Today at 14:43 A former executive at Twitter has claimed that he was given an ultimatum to sign up to the new reality of Twitter 2.0, 'or not'. Gary Rooney told the Labour Court this morning that staff were worried that a famous 'fork in the road' email from Elon Musk was a phishing attempt to harm the company and were concerned that the message was not genuine.
Irish Times
3 days ago
- Business
- Irish Times
Twitter challenges €500,000 WRC award over ‘enhanced opportunity' to depart job
A senior Dublin-based manager with Twitter who was deemed by the company to have resigned when he failed to sign up to the new 'hard-core' work environment set out by Elon Musk had, in fact, availed of an 'enhanced opportunity' to depart with severance pay, the company has told the Labour Court . Twitter International Unlimited, now X , is appealing awards totalling €550,131 made to Gary Rooney by the Workplace Relations Commission last year over the circumstances of his departure from the company's Dublin office where he had been employed for nine years by late 2022 when Mr Musk bought the firm for $44 billion (€38.15 billion). Mr Rooney, a financial manager with global responsibilities in a number of areas, says he was unfairly dismissed and continues to be more than €16,000 out of pocket per month due to the cut in salary he has taken since starting work with a bank as well as the loss of substantial bonuses linked to Twitter's share performance before its sale. He puts his total losses to date at €689,406 and is seeking that amount. Cathy Smith SC for X, contends Mr Rooney resigned and described the estimated losses as 'wildly inaccurate'. READ MORE Mr Rooney characterised the atmosphere within the company in the weeks after the Musk takeover as 'chaotic' as thousands of employees were made redundant and senior managers from other Musk companies were brought in to decide who should be retained or let go. About half of the firm's staff lost their jobs, he said, with senior Twitter managers given no opportunity to say which members of their teams should be impacted. He said the situation caused widespread 'fear and anxiety' among the remaining workers. [ Twitter ordered to pay record €550,000 to senior executive in Ireland Opens in new window ] On November 16th, Mr Musk sent an email titled 'Fork in the Road' to the company's remaining employees. In this, he said that to 'build a breakthrough Twitter 2.0 and succeed in an increasingly competitive world, we will need to be extremely hard-core. This will mean working long hours at high intensity. Only exceptional performance will constitute a passing grade.' The email required employees to click 'yes' in a link at the bottom of the email. Anyone who did not do so by 10pm Irish time the following day, it said, would receive three months' pay in severance. 'Whatever decision you make, thank you for your efforts to make Twitter successful,' Mr Musk said. The following morning the company followed up with an Frequently Asked Questions document in which it said those who did not sign up in the way outlined in Mr Musk's email would subsequently receive documentation outlining the terms of the departure. Mr Rooney, who received gross pay of €334,114.84 during 2022 until December 18th when his employment formally ended, said he did not know what the implications of signing up would be as he already routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per week and had been recognised through a variety of significant bonuses to be a high performer. He said he approached his manager seeking additional information but he did not have any and both of his US-based immediate superiors had already been fired. 'I didn't really know what to think. I always would have considered myself to be a high performer but I didn't know if that high performance would meet that passing grade. I already worked long hours but I didn't know whether I would be expected to work longer hours or have them assigned to me'. He said he was also unsure about how benefits included in his remuneration package might be altered as the FAQ said detail of this would be provided in the following days. Asked by counsel, Padraic Lyons SC, briefed Barry Kenny of Kenny Sullivan Solicitors whether his situation might reasonably be described as 'an enhanced opportunity' to go, as Ms Smith, briefed by Mason Hayes and Curran for X, had suggested, he said he didn't know how it could characterised as such. 'I had no way of knowing what the implications of ticking the box might be,' he said, adding that he did not believe the 12 hours he was effectively allowed to make a decision from the receipt of the FAQ document was reasonable. Asked if he believed he had tendered his resignation by not ticking the box, he said: 'No. Absolutely not.'
