ZELDA VENTER
Secret recordings made at work by a now former employee and management caused a company to urgently turn to the Labour Court in Johannesburg in a bid for the worker to hand the recordings over to them.
Puma Energy SA told the court that they did not know what the recordings entailed, but they were nervous that the now fired employee, a Mrs Sekete, would use it against them.
Sekete admitted that while employed by Puma Energy she recorded work-related conversations between herself and the cluster general manager and the regional human resources executive while they were unaware that they were being recorded.
She wanted evidence to use in litigation she would institute or defend involving Puma Energy.
Puma said it is its personal information recorded by the worker on her private electronic device/s and they want the recording. They also wanted an order that her electronic device/s be subjected to forensic examination and any personal information of the company that is found on the device/s be permanently removed.
Sekete said she wanted evidence to use in litigation she would institute or defend involving the company. According to her the recordings taken by her are in terms of the provisions of the Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of Communication-Related Information Act.
She said as she was a party to the conversation and the recording is to be used in litigation, her conduct is lawful.
While the company said it is uncertain what the recorded conversations entail, the information comprises personal information of its erstwhile employees. It is thus exposed to the risk of litigation against its erstwhile employees and needs to keep their personal information (including voice recognition) confidential in terms of the provisions of the Protection of Personal Information Act.
The company argued that the application is urgent, as with every day that passes, it is at risk that Sekete will divulge the information on the recordings.
In August last year, Sekete lodged a grievance against one of her managers. Investigations regarding the grievance ensued, during which it came to light that she had recorded some conversations.
An investigation report stated that she breached the provisions of the Protection of Personal Information Act when she recorded conversations with colleagues without their knowledge. It was found that she was guilty of misconduct.
Consequently, she was placed on precautionary suspension pending the outcome of the disciplinary enquiry.
During the disciplinary Sekete intimated that she would use the recordings against the company. The latter viewed this as a threat and she was fired in July this year.
She subsequently lodged an unfair dismissal dispute at the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration.
Sekete said the recordings are work related and her safety key in future litigation against the company.
The court, in turning down the application as it is found not to be urgent, said the company knew about the recordings a year ago. Yet it only approached the court now, on an urgent basis, to have the recordings back.
The court said the company created its own urgency by only now turning to court.
Pretoria News