Standing Up for Our Members
IBSA stands with you when things go wrong at work. From unfair treatment and disciplinary hearings to poor performance charges, contract disputes and allegations of fraud. Our team knows the banking and insurance sector and how to use workplace procedures and the law to protect you.
Our track record speaks through the cases we handle: helping members keep their jobs secure, fair outcomes and challenge employers when processes are not followed correctly. With IBSA on your side, you have an experienced trade union support from the first query through to formal hearings and, where needed, the CCMA.
Our Recent Cases
The adviser had been accused of forging a client’s signature on a policy application. The employer produced evidence from various clients, GFS and a handwriting expert. During the disciplinary enquiry the Union Representative made representations that disqualified the evidence relied upon by the employer. The employee was found not guilty and immediately resumed employment.
The member was employed on a permanent basis. After a business case the member was moved onto a fixed term contract. After numerous contractual renewals spanning a period of several years the employer decided not to renew the fixed term contract. We lodged a grievance on behalf of our member and referred the matter to the CCMA. Thereafter, our member was offered a permanent job. Now our member is a permanent employee with all benefits included.
Our member was underperforming in the branch and the employer sought to initiate a poor performance enquiry. The Union argued that the poor performance in terms of the employer’s disciplinary guidelines as well as the processes set by the employer was not followed correctly. It was also identified through the process that the manager was not providing the necessary support. Due to the procedural irregularities the Union requested the case be dismissed successfully. The employee returned to work immediately.
The employer alleged that the financial adviser was underperforming and failed to obey a reasonable and lawful instruction. At the disciplinary enquiry the employer relied on evidence of Whatsapp messages and PRP documentation amongst others.
It was argued by the Union that the actions of the employee amounted to Insolence on the evidence. The Chairperson found that there was insufficient evidence to prove Gross Insubordination. Accordingly the employee was acquitted of all charges.
The employer brought evidence via email correspondence and turn-style records to the disciplinary enquiry. The Union representative queried the time delay in bringing charges forward and discredited the evidence submitted by the employer. The Chairperson found that there was insufficient evidence to find the employee guilty and recommended proper communication lines be opened by the employer.
The adviser had been accused of forging a client’s signature on a policy application. The employer produced evidence in support of the allegation. A pre-liminary point was raised by the Union, according to case law, dismissal could not sustain itself on its own and would amount to failure of justice on the evidence produced. Thus the employer failed to discharge their onus.
The adviser had been accused of forging a client’s signature on a policy application. During the disciplinary enquiry the employer called witnesses to give evidence by telecom. During cross-examination it became apparent that the evidence was flimsy. The employee never made a statement to GFS and on a conspectus of all the evidence the employee won his case.
The advisor had been accused of submitting false S&T claims but under cross-examination the company, after they had closed their case, had not submitted sufficient evidence to back up their claims. The rule/law of evidence was argued and the charges were withdrawn.
The advisor had been accused of a breach, as there was more than one client with the same banking details. Under cross-examination they could not prove that the clients were interviewed satisfactorily and they could not prove that there was no insured interest. The member was found not guilty on all charges.
