18 Feb 2019

Minister of Employment, Labour Productivity and Skills Development, Mr Tshenolo Mabeo says he was aware of a D3 officer who was transferred from one department to another in the former Ministry of Labour and Home Affairs on September 28, 2016. Mr Mabeo explained that the officer did not honour the transfer claiming that she was not given work by the director at her new station.

He said that was supported by written evidence, adding that she was then transferred to where her services were needed most, and therefore she was required to report and execute her duties at the new duty station. Mr Mabeo said the officer could not be allocated work in the Ministry of Employment, Labour Productivity and Skills Development as she was substantively an employee of the Ministry of Nationality, Immigration and Gender Affairs.

Furthermore, he pointed out that the officer later challenged the administrative decision to transfer her at court, and that the court made a decision in her favour on January 24, 2019. Mr Mabeo said the officer was occupying her original position of principal industrial relations II in the Department of Labour and Social Security.

Member of Parliament for Selibe Phikwe West, Mr Dithapelo Keorapetse had asked the minister if government as the employer had an obligation to provide work, and if he was aware that an employee at salary scale of D3 in the ministry has not been allocated work for 18 months following a transfer dispute.

He wanted the minister to confirm whether government lost the court case against the said employee. Furthermore, he wanted to know why the permanent secretary could not be surcharged for the loss of money through payment of work not done and the court case costs.

Mr Mabeo further explained that the surcharge was provided for in Section 43 of the Public Finance Management Act Cap:54:01. He clarified that “the circumstances under which the power of surcharge may be exercised are varied, but mainly involve willful default or negligence pertaining to custody of public finance and property,” adding that “as such that provision was deemed irrelevant to that particular issue.” ENDS