Fired manager wants to battle on over dismissal

NEARLY five years after the start of a drawn-out labour dispute between an airport services company and one of its former managers, the end is still not in sight for this protracted courtroom contest.

The latest port at which the case between Belete Worku and his former employers, Servisair Namibia, has called on a tortuous route through the Namibian labour-court system, was the High Court in Windhoek on Friday last week. But still it does not appear that the bitter battle that Worku and Servisair embarked on after the company fired Worku from his post as a manager at Servisair in September 2001 is close to reaching its final destination.Having heard that the Labour Court, in a judgement by Judge Gerhard Maritz, had ruled against him in his dispute with Servisair, Worku immediately – without even having had a chance to look at the court’s reasons for its decision – told Judge Kato van Niekerk, who handed down the judgement, that he wants to appeal against the ruling.If he succeeds in doing that, the case will end up in the Supreme Court.Judge Maritz might have had prophetic foresight over Worku’s reaction to his judgement.He remarked, at the start of his judgement on the matter, that the history of the “acrimonious relationship (between Worku and Servisair) reveals itself on a long and winding litigious road of which the end, I am afraid to say, is not yet in sight”.The issue that Judge Maritz had to decide was whether the dispute between Worku and Servisair had been settled in June 2003, when the company agreed to pay him N$72 000 as a full and final settlement of all disputes between them.According to both Servisair’s lawyers, Frank Koepplinger and Raymond Heathcote, and Worku’s then lawyers, Richard Mueller and Albert Strydom, the matter had indeed been settled.Worku however protested that this was without his consent.Faced with his lawyers’ claims to the contrary, he set out on an ever-widening warpath against not only the company but the lawyers as well, levelling not only charges of bribery, corruption and fraud against them, but also making increasingly outlandish claims that he feared that paid assassins were being sent to kill him because of the stand he was taking against the lawyers and others involved in the case against him.Not only Worku, but also the lawyers who had been involved in the negotiation of the alleged settlement, had given their evidence before him “as frankly and candidly as one could expect of honest and reliable witnesses”, Judge Maritz remarked in his judgement.Worku’s testimony had been consistent throughout, and he “sought to impress the court with an unwavering commitment to his faith, the values thereof and his integrity,” he stated.The Judge however added: “My difficulty when assessing the reliability of (Worku’s) evidence is his consuming – almost fanatical – belief in his own self-righteousness.It colours, I must conclude, the manner in which he observes events, the inferences he makes from the conduct of others and his experience of reality.His evidence, although given with consistency and conviction, is in many respects not reliable: it conforms to his experience, his expectations, his interests and his beliefs.”Worku seemed to believe that a settlement agreement would be binding only once it was signed by him, but this attitude does not conform to the legal principles relating to these sort of contracts, the Judge stated as he concluded that Strydom indeed had a mandate to settle the matter on the terms that he and Heathcote agreed on.But still it does not appear that the bitter battle that Worku and Servisair embarked on after the company fired Worku from his post as a manager at Servisair in September 2001 is close to reaching its final destination.Having heard that the Labour Court, in a judgement by Judge Gerhard Maritz, had ruled against him in his dispute with Servisair, Worku immediately – without even having had a chance to look at the court’s reasons for its decision – told Judge Kato van Niekerk, who handed down the judgement, that he wants to appeal against the ruling.If he succeeds in doing that, the case will end up in the Supreme Court.Judge Maritz might have had prophetic foresight over Worku’s reaction to his judgement.He remarked, at the start of his judgement on the matter, that the history of the “acrimonious relationship (between Worku and Servisair) reveals itself on a long and winding litigious road of which the end, I am afraid to say, is not yet in sight”.The issue that Judge Maritz had to decide was whether the dispute between Worku and Servisair had been settled in June 2003, when the company agreed to pay him N$72 000 as a full and final settlement of all disputes between them.According to both Servisair’s lawyers, Frank Koepplinger and Raymond Heathcote, and Worku’s then lawyers, Richard Mueller and Albert Strydom, the matter had indeed been settled.Worku however protested that this was without his consent.Faced with his lawyers’ claims to the contrary, he set out on an ever-widening warpath against not only the company but the lawyers as well, levelling not only charges of bribery, corruption and fraud against them, but also making increasingly outlandish claims that he feared that paid assassins were being sent to kill him because of the stand he was taking against the lawyers and others involved in the case against him.Not only Worku, but also the lawyers who had been involved in the negotiation of the alleged settlement, had given their evidence before him “as frankly and candidly as one could expect of honest and reliable witnesses”, Judge Maritz remarked in his judgement.Worku’s testimony had been consistent throughout, and he “sought to impress the court with an unwavering commitment to his faith, the values thereof and his integrity,” he stated.The Judge however added: “My difficulty when assessing the reliability of (Worku’s) evidence is his consuming – almost fanatical – belief in his own self-righteousness.It colours, I must conclude, the manner in which he observes events, the inferences he makes from the conduct of others and his experience of reality.His evidence, although given with consistency and conviction, is in many respects not reliable: it conforms to his experience, his expectations, his interests and his beliefs.”Worku seemed to believe that a settlement agreement would be binding only once it was signed by him, but this attitude does not conform to the legal principles relating to these sort of contracts, the Judge stated as he concluded that Strydom indeed had a mandate to settle the matter on the terms that he and Heathcote agreed on.