Our story begins on 28 February 2008, when a young – and brave, it will later transpire – Rizqa Abdullah, a 2007 Financial Information Systems graduate of the Cape Peninsula University of Technology, commenced employment with Oasis Group Holdings, at their 22 Riebeek Street, Cape Town, premises.

Some quite prominent people have at one time or another been associated with Oasis, among them Western Cape Judge President John Hlophe, who, controversially, was on their payroll and moonlighting for them in and out of court (see below). The founder-directors of Oasis are the brothers Ebrahim: Shaheen, Adam and Nazeem.

In May 2008, two months into her employment, Abdullah requested and was allowed a transfer to join Oasis’s five-person Information Systems department tasked with an important IT project called Project Bela. She loved her job and later described her immediate boss, Mohamed Khan, as, “a good manager who did not compromise who he was for Oasis” . Oh-oh – do we detect a hint of unhappiness here?

Yes, it wasn’t long before Abdullah saw and heard how badly the brothers Ebrahim treated other members of staff and managers, including Mohamed Khan. Project Bela was understaffed, time and resources were few, and, to add to Khan’s woes, he was on the receiving end of a campaign of harassment, victimisation and swearing by the Ebrahims. Abdullah could see the toll that this was taking on Khan’s health. She would have left sooner had she not believed she owed Khan moral support, although herself keeping a low profile. She also felt protected in that she worked for and reported to Khan. As time went by, she also overheard what went on in management meetings and became ever more disenchanted with her new big bosses. She would later testify that other Oasis staff were desperate to work under Khan in order to “escape the madness”.

From l to r: London Sheriff Richard Sermon, Nazeem Ebrahim, Lord Mayor of London Michael Bear, Shaheen Ebrahim, UK Trade Commissioner to SA Andrew Henderson and Adam Ebrahim.

Khan finally had a bellyful of the Ebrahims’ tirades and on 27 August 2010 handed in his notice.

Presumably tired of going to work with her heart in her mouth and wondering when it would be her turn to be harassed, victimised and verbally abused by the terrible trio, she too resolved to hand in her letter of resignation. On 30 August 2010 she arrived at work – resignation letter in her bag – and found the IS department’s office door locked, only to be told that the IS and IT departments had been integrated. She was told her boss had been moved to the 22nd floor.

There she found Khan sitting “in isolation” at a desk, with only a notepad and pen in front of him. Nazeem Ebrahim was standing next to the desk. One could have cut the air with a knife. Her heart was thumping. She knew from Khan’s look that she should not approach him. She recalled how another employee who had resigned was made to sit in an isolated area of the building which was filled with boxes, reading the newspapers daily for three months.

Khan’s position had been taken over by Oasis IT Manager, Jay P Khailan, and so she handed her letter of resignation to him. It was headed: “Notice of resignation effective 1 September 2010”. In the letter she undertook to fulfil her “duties and responsibilities whilst I am still here [there was a three-month notice period stipulated in her contract] and ensure that all of my responsibilities are handed over correctly”.

But Oasis preferred to take her letter to mean that her last day of employment would be 31 August 2010.

Nazeem Ebrahim then proceeded to make any thought of her staying on for the notice period impossible: he bullied her, saying her letter of resignation indicated that she wanted to leave Oasis immediately. Not so, said Abdullah. He nevertheless took immediate steps to force her immediate departure.

Abdullah then approached the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) in Cape Town, alleging constructive dismissal.

This is where our story really begins.

The CCMA heard that, on the day of tendering her resignation, (new boss) Khailan excluded her from a joint IS and IT lunchtime staff meeting. He returned from the meeting and asked her whether she would be leaving “today or tomorrow”, telling her he would let her go “today”.

She replied that she intended to work her three-month notice period as she didn’t have another job lined up – and that her colleague Junaid Hoosen was due to take leave in October 2010.

Khailan told her in no uncertain terms that she would not be working out her notice in the IS/IT departments – which is where her training and skills lay – and, furthermore, Hoosen’s leave was no concern of hers. He demanded she hand over, forthwith, her company-issue laptop and access cards to the building, her department, and various other conference rooms including the 20th-floor boardroom and the small research boardroom on the 21st floor.

Khailan then instructed another employee to accompany Abdullah to the office of Mohamed Bayat, Oasis Human Resources and Training Manager, for him to decree where she would be placed. Bayat told her that Nazeem Ebrahim would “decide what would happen to her”. But he was in a meeting. Bayat disappeared, leaving her sitting in his office. When he returned he told her that it “appears from the facts” that she owed Oasis money and would have to sign an acknowledgement of debt.

She found herself cornered by Bayat, HR administrator Anis Cassim and Nazeem Ebrahim – who persisted in telling her that her resignation letter indicated she wanted to leave forthwith. She insisted that she wanted to work out her three-month notice period.

Abdullah had learned from other Oasis employees that it is wise to record conversations with Oasis bosses. And so it was that she put her cellphone on recording mode and placed it in her jacket pocket. But the wily Nazeem Ebrahim was alive to the fact that cellphone recording was standard operating procedure for troubled Oasis staff.

"Hand over your cellphone"

Recording:

Nazeem: Put your jacket over there please. Put your jacket over there. Where’s your cellphone? Take your cellphone out. Leave it outside. Put your bag outside.

Abdullah: Uncle Nazeem!

Nazeem: I am no uncle Nazeem. Leave your cellphone outside or I’ll fire you without any whatsername. Leave your cellphone.

Abdullah: Uncle Nazeem. I wanted to work out...

Nazeem: Leave your cellphone outside.

End of recording.

At the CCMA, Abdullah’s case was heard by respected, no-nonsense commissioner Ursula Bulbring.

In her 4 July 2011 judgment she says:

“Abdullah said that the staff call the directors ‘uncle’. She took her bag and jacket out. She heard Nazeem saying something about “make her sign it”. She returned to Bayat’s office. It was small (about 4.5 by 3 metres). She knew that other employees had been forced to sign AODs and she knew not to sign it. Nazeem told her to sit down; he then whispered to Bayat and Bayat said that she would move to the 20th floor boardroom to resolve the issue. Abdullah asked if they could take the stairs. Nazeem said that they would go where he said they would go. A decision was made to go to the small research boardroom on the 21st floor. Abdullah said that Nazeem [Ebrahim] was “aggressive, hostile and in her space”. She was concerned about going into the research boardroom because entrance is gained with an access card. She disputed that there was a key in a glass door through which she could exit (she had worked in that room before). She believed that she would be trapped. If she went in, she could not exit (she had handed in her access card). Abdullah said that she was scared; it was Ramadan, she did not want to be alone with them in the boardroom. At least in Bayat’s office there were glass windows and everybody around could see and hear.

“Nazeem was saying that she’d have to pay in her leave and notice (in the form of forfeiture of her provident fund) because she was leaving early. She saw the lift doors opening and saw it as her chance to run. She ran into the lift and noticed (HR man) Cassim running towards the lift too. She exited the lift and leapt over the turnstiles at the foyer of Oasis building and ran down Long Street.”

The CCMA hearing was conducted over four days between 12 November 2010 and 23 June 2011. Oasis was to be represented by one of its senior managers, Ridwan Kajee.

On the first day, Bayat appeared and sought a postponement on the basis that Kajee had viral meningitis and, furthermore, he, Bayat, was, “not prepared or qualified to deal with the matter”.

Commissioner Bulbring would have none of it and agreed with Abdullah’s lawyer Richard Brown that Kajee had played no material role in her departure from the company.

Bulbring: “Bayat was present on the day Abdullah left; Bayat is an experienced HR practitioner (a professor of tourism management and a dean of a business faculty) and could ably represent the company.” [Maybe – but see "Oh, that Oasis remuneration!" below.]

Bulbring: “Abdullah is relieved to no longer work at the company. She found Nazeems’s shouting [at her on that day] and swearing unbearable. He was rude, abrupt, intimidating. Her father would never speak to her like that. He had once come into the IS department and suggested an overweight colleague take a walk around the block. She believes that the general public regard the company as a “tyrant” for the way it conducts its business. The company has not cooperated with her to obtain the release of her pension fund. HR had not responded to several requests. Other former employees also struggled to receive payment (Bayat confirmed during his evidence that there were two complaints to the Pension Funds Adjudicator).”

Apart from being the company’s “lawyer” for the proceedings, Bayat was also a witness. The commissioner was singularly unimpressed with his “evidence”:

Bulbring: “Bayat faced a conundrum in giving evidence. [The version given in.] His email of 9 September 2010 to Abdullah was not supported by the transcript from the recording. Following the giving of their evidence and the cross-examination, I found that neither Bayat nor Cassim were credible witnesses. Khailan was a compelling witness who largely contradicted the evidence of his two colleagues, Cassim and Bayat. To my mind, the words uttered by Nazeem ‘sign the document, compensate us and leave’ were designed to make continued employment impossible.”

Nazeem, an attorney and “Head of Group Compliance”, did not take the stand to testify. Commissioner Bulbring found that Abdullah had been constructively dismissed and awarded her six months’ pay – an amount of R108 000.

Life in the fast track

Professor Mohamed Sayheed Bayat was fired by the Cape Peninsula University of Technology on 1 February 2010 after a thorough enquiry headed by respected labour law expert Sarah Christie. She found that he had committed fraud, had altered students’ marks and had “fast-tracked” a Tourism and Hospitality student’s Master’s thesis.

Oh, that Oasis remuneration!

The African Christian Democratic Party laid a complaint with the Judicial Service Commission regarding Judge John Hlophe’s tax evasion. The JSC assembled a committee of three to investigate Judge Hlophe’s relationship with, and payments from, Oasis. They were: Appeal Court President Craig Howie, North Gauteng High Court Judge President Bernard Ngoepe and disgraced Advocate Seth Nthai, SC.

The transcript of the 13 September 2006 evidence makes interesting reading when the possibility of Judge Hlophe having committed tax evasion is discussed:

Howie P: Did you declare it [the Oasis income]?

Hlophe JP: To the best of my knowledge Sir, my tax is up to date and I brought proof thereof...

Howie P: My question was, did what you declare include the remuneration from Oasis?

Hlophe JP: I don’t remember what was the arrangement between myself and Oasis with regard to tax in particular but I have not had any queries raised from the tax authorities.

Howie P: Would you just check, we don’t want tax details that don’t have anything to do with this. The question is simply whether the receipts from Oasis were declared.

Hlophe JP: OK.

(Hlophe JP is then excused.)

Ngoepe JP: The reference to the tax returns... I don’t know where that is going to lead... that, which may be something else altogether... I was becoming quite uncomfortable about such direction because what if somebody hears that he has not disclosed that in his tax returns, which means a criminal offence and really...

Howie P:  That is not a complaint.  [Really, Judge Howie? Paragraph 4 of the ACDP complaint was all about “tax evasion”. – Ed]

On 13 July 2007 Judge Hlophe wrote a letter to the JSC in which he pointed out:  “My application for tax amnesty is currently pending before SARS with regard to some income, which was not timeously declared. I am currently awaiting the outcome of this application.”

[Ja well no fine.]

Another curious detail: Oasis had paid Hlophe’s “fees” directly to the Ting Trust, a trust controlled by Judge Hlophe.

Copyright © 2012 www.noseweek.co.za