• Dismissed employees bay for Maele’s blood  
• MP says he is a professional HR consultant

BG reporter

Tswapong North MP, Prince Maele, has dismissed allegations of double-dealings as a representative of the people and a private human resources consultant.
On the other hand, two former employees of Ellis Botswana (Pty) Ltd are vigorously baying for the legislator’s blood, alleging that he played a big role in their dismissals.The duo, Collin Khali and Sugar Molefhe, have written uncouth letters to the legislator telling him how he misrepresented himself in name, and position he held at Ellis as human resources consultant.

In a letter delivered to Maele, Khali who has worked for Ellis for 11 years and was fired in May this year alleges that Maele introduced himself as Prince Oitsile, Human Resources Manager of Ellis at the District Labour Office in Gaborone on 19th May 2010 before Labour Officer Motsele.
Khali complains that Maele did this in the full knowledge that he was an MP “having been dubiously and fraudulently engaged, (probably for a fee) to argue the case against me in favour of Ellis”.
“I put it you that you were not an employee nor a human resources manager as you claimed. I also put it to you that that there has never been such a post in Ellis Botswana for the past 11 years when I was an employee (general manager) there, to which you responded by telling me that you had been employed the previous 11 days from the date of the hearing,” alleges Khali.
He further alleges that when he asked Maele to produce the copy of his signed contract he failed to produce one. He said as a legislator one would have expected Maele to be an advocate of the unfairly dismissed and not play a devil’s advocate in favour of companies that unfairly dismiss employees. Maele has brushed aside the allegations that as an MP notwithstanding he is not prohibited from doing consultancy work.
“I am human resources practitioner. I do HR consultancies for reputable companies in the country and quite a number of them. When I do the consultancies I enter into service contracts. There is no way as an MP that I can take formal employment. So there is nothing that prohibits me from doing business. The only thing that I cannot partake in is formal employment which attracts a salary,” said the legislator.
He added he also helped individuals on issues concerning HR, while Ellis is one of those companies that he advises on HR issues as and when the need arises. The legislator said Ellis informed him that one of their employees, Khali had misconducted himself at work and that he was negligent in doing his job and was running down the company.
He said the complaint arose from an incident in which Khali had been injured, and at the end of his sick leave, had not reported back to work, hence the complaint. The MP said it was on the basis of those allegations that Ellis sought his advice. He accordingly advised that Khali be called to explain himself but says he refused to appear before Ellis management hence the decision to hold a disciplinary hearing against him. Khali is also alleged to have refused to attend the hearing when he was asked to do so for the second time.
“I then informed Ellis that Khali by refusing at least two times to attend to the meetings had waived his rights in a disciplinary hearing and as such they had to assess the gravity of his offences and take appropriate action. It was on those circumstances that he was fired,” explained Maele.
“I never wrote that dismissal letter. I do not even know its contents. They simply informed me that they had dismissed him,” he said. On the Oitsile issue, Maele explained that Oitsile is his father’s name and he uses it as well, adding that he introduces himself Prince Oitsile Maele.
As for Molefhe he said that the complainant refused to attend the hearings that were convened by Ellis and that is the reason why he was fired and the rest of the allegations that he raised had nothing to do with him.
In his letter to Maele, Molefhe alleges that he objected to Maele presiding over his case although he maintained that he was a consultant.
However, Maele countered that he was approached to preside because the managing director of Ellis, Peter van Vuuren, was the complainant and there was nobody who could then preside.
“I admit I chaired the hearing. At the first instance he objected to my chairing. I explained to him that under the employment laws there is no prescription on who has to chair. I adjourned so that he could seek advice on the issue. His representative also told him that there was nothing wrong with an outsider chairing, and he refused to partake in the hearing. I then gave judgment to the effect that he had waived his rights,” said Maele.
Asked whether as representative of the people, he did not consider his involvement in the HR consultancy in conflict with employees’ expectation of him, Maele answered in the negative.
“No, because I represent the interests of both the employees and the employers. Most of the time I advise on the position in line with the Employment Act. If the employee is wrong I will point out so and the same goes for the employer. I am a professional and I will not protect irresponsible employees and employers. I play a fair game,” said the legislator.
On whether he does not feel that he is likely to be biased in favour of employers since they pay him a fee, Maele said nine out the 10 cases that he handled had come out in favour of employees even where companies felt that the employees should have been fired.