The University of Johannesburg’s (UJ) legal representative has accused the institution’s dismissed lecturer and her legal team of interfering with the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) proceedings.
This after Eversheds-Sutherland (SA) INC’s Nadia Froneman complaint about the sharing of information regarding the proceedings.
Her concerns an article published by Sunday Independent last week, in which UJ former lecturer Lyness Matizirofa accused Froneman and Eversheds-Sutherland of accessing her medical report without her consent.
Matizirofa, who was dismissed for poor performance and gross dishonesty in 2020, said Eversheds-Sutherland plotted her dismissal using her medical report.
Matizirofa, who argued that her dismissal was based on her disability and xenophobia, said this was after Froneman and UJ HR practitioner colluded to share her medical report on August 29, 2019, without her consent. She said this was before she was dismissed as a lecturer based on poor performance and dishonesty.
In another leaked audio on Tuesday, Froneman accused Matizirofa of sharing the information to intimidate her. She told Commissioner Piet van Staden that she was concerned that this was an attempt to interfere with the proceedings.
“Mrs Matizirofa and her people are commenting pending on CCMA arbitration proceedings in the press, midway through my cross-examination of her. The email of August 2019 has been fully canvassed with you (Commissioner) and the attachment stated as well, and demonstrates that the email did not contain the report,” said Froneman.
She said Matizirofa was also feeding the media with incorrect statements to the extent that she says her version is correct and the report was attached to that email.
“You (Commissioner) have not made a ruling or determination on the issue. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that this is an act to intimidate me, or my cross-examination against her. Or even to intimidate you Mr Commissioner, by instilling fear in you ‒ that if you don’t deliver the arbitration award in her favour you may also suffer the fate which I have,” said Froneman.
“While I understand that you don’t have the powers to make a ruling in this forum to get Mrs Matizirofa to have the article removed and prevent them from conducting themselves in this fashion in the future.
“I do wish to place on record, that I got these concerns and they are attempting to interfere with the process and intimidate you or I,” she said.
Matizirofa's legal representative, Advocate MacGregor Kufa, said these were all lies, saying they did not share the recordings. He also blamed Eversheds-Sutherland, saying the recording could be shared by the law firm. Kufa, however, said the story was true from the recording.
“I listened to that recording and the article was exactly what was contained in it. Those words that were recorded in the article are true,” said Kufa.
He said it was funny that Froneman raised concerns and complaints when it hurt her, while they rushed to the court when Matizirofa and her legal team launched a complaint on the labour court matter that former UJ vice-chancellor Professor Tshilidzi Marwala used SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) for voicing that they intimidated her.
“But when Mrs Matizirofa, through this Commission, not to the press, but through this Commission, mentions things, her rights get violated,” Kufa said.
When Kufa asked van Staden if he felt intimidated, he said he was not aware of the article and did not feel intimidated. Van Staden added that there was nothing to prevent any of the parties from making their own recordings.
Asked why she complained about the proceedings being shared with the public, Froneman said she raised concerns about the article being published while the proceedings were still pending and could be viewed as an attempt to interfere with the pending CCMA proceedings.
“However, I did not ask the Commissioner to prevent it from happening again. I simply placed my concerns on record, as I am entitled to do. In fact, in doing so, I acknowledged that the Commissioner would and/or could not do anything about my concerns.
To this end, the Commissioner acknowledged that I have the right to take umbrage with what had happened, that I have remedies to deal with it, but that he (correctly) understood that I was simply placing my concerns on record,’’ she said.
In the meantime, Matizirofa has launched a complaint with the Information Regulator. In the compliant, that was lodged on April 15, Matizirofa said Froneman obtained her medical records illegally and continued to use them to fight her. She said Froneman also included the medical report in her file at the CCMA.
“I appreciate your investigation into this matter. As a poor African disabled woman, I am relying on bodies like yours to seek justice. The law firm is illegally in possession of my medical records and it is using the records to maintain my unfair dismissal from my employment, ” she wrote.
Froneman said said she was not aware that Matizirofa launched complaint with regulator until she received questions from this publication.
“In the circumstances, I am unable to comment on the complaint which has allegedly been launched as I have not had sight of it. Even if I was aware, it would be irresponsible for me to provide you with my comment thereon given that that complaint is, likewise, allegedly currently pending before the Information Regulator and is, therefore, sub judice,” said Froneman.
Information Regulator spokesperson Nomzamo Zondi said confirmed that they have received the Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA) complaint from Matizirofa. Zondi said the complaints and investigation office was currently processing the complain.
“The complaint will be attended to in accordance with the turn – around times to treat the complaint, depending on its magnitude - whether it is a simple or complex complaint,” she said.