Question NW1219 to the Minister of Tourism

Reply:

(1) With reference to disciplinary action and/or any related action taken against staff in each level within SA Tourism

(a) in the past three financial years

Financial Year 2020/2021

i) what number of disciplinary cases were dealt with in each month,

• I have been informed of one disciplinary case in FY20/21

ii) on what date was each case initiated and concluded,

• The employee was charged in March 2020 and the disciplinary enquiry was convened in July 2020 over three days.

iii) what were the reasons for the action,?

• The employee was charged with gross negligence as it relates to supply chain and procurement processes for one of the in-country offices;
• The secondary charges were around the failure to follow procedures in relation to a procurement process.

iv) what number of staff members were found?

(aa) guilty and fired,

• The employee was found guilty of gross negligence and the sanction meted out was dismissal

(bb) guilty and not fired and

• Not applicable

(cc) innocent;

- Not applicable

(2) what (a) alternative sanction was meted out in each case where a staff member was found guilty but not fired and

- Not applicable

(b) were the reasons that staff members were found not guilty in each specified case?

- Not applicable

Financial Year 2021/2022

With reference to disciplinary action and/or any related action taken against staff in each level within SA Tourism

(i)  what number of disciplinary cases were dealt with in each month,

• Three disciplinary cases took place in the organisation

(ii) on what date was each case initiated and concluded,

1. The first case involved the GM: ICT and was initiated in April 2021 and was concluded in May 2021;
2. The second case involved the Enterprise Architecture Manager and was initiated in October 2021 and was concluded in the same month;
3. The third case involved the Data & Security Implementation Specialist and was initiated in March 2022 and was concluded in the same month.

(iii) what were the reasons for the action,?

1. The case involving the GM: ICT involved charges of gross negligence in relation to the management and payment of invoices for systems and failure to follow organisational procedures and compliance;
2. The case involving the Enterprise Architecture Manager involved charges of gross negligence, dereliction of duty as well as insubordination;
3. The case involving the Data & Security Implementation involved failure to deliver work of the required standard and negligence.

(iv) what number of staff members were fired?

(aa) guilty and fired,

• Employees under (a) and (b) were found guilty and the sanction meted out was dismissal

(bb) guilty and not fired and

• Not applicable

(cc) innocent;

- Employee under (c) was found not guilty

(2) what (a) alternative sanction was meted out in each case where a staff member was found guilty but not fired and

- Not applicable

(b) were the reasons that staff members were found not guilty in each specified case?

- The evidence presented for employee under (c) did not support a guilty verdict. It was recommended that the employee undergo a performance counselling process.

Financial Year 2022/2023 and (b) since 1 April 2023,

With reference to disciplinary action and/or any related action taken against staff in each level within SA Tourism

(i) what number of disciplinary cases were dealt with in each month,

• A total number of two disciplinary cases for the fiscal

(iii) on what date was each case initiated and concluded,

1. The first case involved the Head: Analytics and was initiated in February 2022;
2. The second case involved the Brand Innovation Manager and was initiated in July 2022;

(iv) what were the reasons for the action?

1. The employee under (a) was charged with gross insubordination and gross negligence;
2. The employee under (b) was charged with dereliction of duty, gross negligence and negligence;

(v) what number of staff members were found

(aa) guilty and fired,

1. The employee under (a) was found guilty and the sanction meted out was dismissal;
2. The employee under (b) was found guilty and the sanction meted out was dismissal;

(bb) guilty and not fired and

• Not applicable

(cc) innocent;

• Not applicable

(2) what (a) alternative sanction was meted out in each case where a staff member was found guilty but not fired and

- Not applicable

(b) were the reasons that staff members were found not guilty in each specified case?

- Not applicable