Labour Court dismisses R45 million claim by former Nedbank employee involving workplace affair
The Labour Court in Johannesburg has dismissed a R45 million claim by former Nedbank employee Erwin Meth.
Image: File
The Labour Court in Johannesburg has dismissed a R45 million claim by former Nedbank employee Erwin Meth.
This comes after Meth accused Nedbank, Sun City, and a former colleague of harassment, discrimination, and breaching his rights following a workplace relationship and disciplinary action.
"The plaintiff was an employee of Nedbank. During the tenure of his employment, he had an affair with Ngcwabe, who was in a heterosexual marriage at the time. The affair was apparently kept secret for a while, whereafter it was discovered by Ngcwabe’s wife and became common knowledge amongst the employees of Nedbank".
"The plaintiff appears to allege that as a result of the aforegoing, he was victimised, discriminated and harassed at work. During his employment with Nedbank, the plaintiff also travelled to Sun City’s resort during the Nedbank Golf Challenge".
"He stayed with Ngcwabe, who was there in an official capacity. During the course of his stay there, the plaintiff was involved in numerous arguments with third parties, including Sun City staff and damaged Sun City’s property. Sun City of course, had footage of the relevant incident and shared this footage with Nedbank".
Following these events, Nedbank initiated disciplinary action against Meth, which led to him agreeing to terminate his employment through a mutual separation agreement (MSA).
Meth later challenged the validity of the MSA, claiming he signed it under duress and undue influence. However, the court found that Meth had accepted the terms of the settlement agreement by signing it and receiving payment.
"Similarly, in the present case I am of the view that when the applicant signed the agreement, thereby signifying his acceptance of its terms, and later accepted the benefits paid to him in terms thereof, the dispute between him and the respondent was finally settled".
"From that time onwards, there was no live dispute between the parties. There being no live dispute for this court to determine, it follows that this court has no jurisdiction to deal with this matter.
IOL Business
mthobisi.nozulela@iol.co.za