- Ravi Aiyenar Paul was accused of going over management's heads by talking to trustees without first getting permission.
- Judge Connie Prinsloo found the dismissal was mainly about conflict with supervisors and not following instructions.
- The Labour Court rejected claims that the dismissal was payback for making protected disclosures.
Talking to trustees without first getting management approval cost Ravi Aiyenar Paul his job after tensions inside a Pretoria Hindu organisation grew during his probation period.
Paul worked as a financial administration assistant for Shree Pretoria Hindu Seva Samaj until his job ended in March 2023. He later said he was fired for raising concerns about financial irregularities, including credit notes and a reimbursement for a cake bought for a seniors' lunch.
The organisation denied this, saying Paul often ignored reporting lines, ignored instructions, and caused tension in the finance department.
Speaking to trustees
Judge Connie Prinsloo heard that tensions rose after Paul spoke directly to trustees and board chairperson Dr Ramjee instead of raising concerns with management first.
The judgment said that at an executive committee meeting, the president complained that Paul had undermined his authority by talking to the trustees without speaking to him first or getting approval.
The court heard that Paul questioned the high number of credit notes issued during Covid 19 and thought the accounting should have been done differently.
But the judgment found Paul later admitted there was nothing illegal about the credit notes and that his concerns were mostly about not liking how the organisation handled its accounts.
Prinsloo found there was not enough evidence to show corruption and noted the organisation kept asking Paul to provide details of any suspicious transactions so they could investigate.
Workplace conflict
The court heard that management got more frustrated with Paul’s behaviour during probation. Supervisors said he ignored instructions, created tension in the finance department, and took concerns straight to trustees instead of following the right steps.
The judgment also looked at Paul’s report about a cake reimbursement after a seniors' lunch. Paul thought payment was requested for a cake that was actually donated.
The court accepted that the cake issue was later fixed and that the committee members who ended Paul’s job did not know about the report when they made their decision.
Prinsloo said, "The disclosure of the cake issue to Dr Ramjee was not and could not have been the reason why the defendant ended Mr Paul’s job."
The court found the main reason for the dismissal was the breakdown in workplace relationships during probation, concerns about Paul’s behaviour toward supervisors, and his struggle to fit into the organisation’s way of working.
Although the automatically unfair dismissal claim was dismissed, the court ordered the organisation to pay Paul one month’s notice pay of R13 000 plus any leave pay he was owed under his contract.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
