Latest news with #SiphepheloLuthuli
IOL News
2 days ago
- IOL News
Pending criminal case costs applicant top court position in the Eastern Cape
The Labour Court ruled in favour of the Office of the Chief Justice for not recommending a candidate for a job as court manager. Image: File The failure to disclose a pending criminal case when asked to do so during a job application can have dire consequences, as an applicant who applied for the position of a court manager discovered. Siphephelo Luthuli applied for two posts in the Eastern Cape as court manager. He was recommended as he was deemed the best candidate. He denied on his application form that he had a criminal record or any pending cases against him. But it was later discovered that there was a pending case relating to alleged driving under the influence of alcohol. The Office of the Chief Justice (OCJ) then withdrew its recommendation that Luthuli get the job. Luthuli took the matter on review before an arbitrator, who ruled in his favour and found that the OCJ was guilty of unlawful labour practice. The OCJ was ordered to compensate him by paying him R61,000, but the office took the matter on review to the Gqeberha Labour Court. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad loading The court was told that in 2019, the OCJ advertised two positions for court managers at the Bhisho and Mthatha High Courts. Luthuli applied, and he was required to indicate if he had ever been convicted of a criminal offence or whether any cases were pending, and his response was 'no'. The OCJ, however, subsequently established that he was arrested in respect of a case of driving a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. Luthuli conceded that he knew about the matter but relied on the fact that the matter was not enrolled by the prosecutor's office. According to the police, the matter was still under investigation. The panel that interviewed him considered the matter and felt he had to disclose that the matter was still pending. As a result, they withdrew their recommendation for his appointment. The arbitrator found this to be irrational, arbitrary, and capricious and ordered that the OCJ compensate Luthuli. The arbitrator found that the definition of 'pending case' or 'pending' was not informed by an objective definition either provided for in legislation or policy.
IOL News
3 days ago
- IOL News
The risks of omitting pending criminal cases in job applications
The Labour Court ruled in favour of the Office of the Chief Justice for not recommending a candidate for a job as court manager. Image: File The failure to disclose a pending criminal case when asked to do so during a job application can have dire consequences, as an applicant who applied for the position of a court manager discovered. Siphephelo Luthuli applied for two posts in the Eastern Cape as court manager. He was recommended as he was deemed the best candidate. He denied on his application form that he had a criminal record or any pending cases against him. But it was later discovered that there was a pending case relating to alleged driving under the influence of alcohol. The Office of the Chief Justice (OCJ) then withdrew its recommendation that Luthuli get the job. Luthuli took the matter on review before an arbitrator, who ruled in his favour and found that the OCJ was guilty of unlawful labour practice. The OCJ was ordered to compensate him by paying him R61,000, but the office took the matter on review to the Gqeberha Labour Court. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad Loading The court was told that in 2019, the OCJ advertised two positions for court managers at the Bhisho and Mthatha High Courts. Luthuli applied, and he was required to indicate if he had ever been convicted of a criminal offence or whether any cases were pending, and his response was 'no'. The OCJ, however, subsequently established that he was arrested in respect of a case of driving a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. Luthuli conceded that he knew about the matter but relied on the fact that the matter was not enrolled by the prosecutor's office. According to the police, the matter was still under investigation. The panel that interviewed him considered the matter and felt he had to disclose that the matter was still pending. As a result, they withdrew their recommendation for his appointment. The arbitrator found this to be irrational, arbitrary, and capricious and ordered that the OCJ compensate Luthuli. The arbitrator found that the definition of 'pending case' or 'pending' was not informed by an objective definition either provided for in legislation or policy.
