Category Archives: Uncategorized

Once upon a time, just seeing through the smoke screen became a revolutionary act. Today the smoke screen dazzles, mindlessly.

Jaspar, seven/eight months pregnant, wearing a jazzy red and white striped close-fitting dress, is silhouetted as she walks along a densely cobbled shoreline of an extensive lake, mindful of her booted steps. The expansive still waters in the background stretch to a far-flung impartial land-mass along the horizon. Behind her the water glistens with diamonds. This photograph is presented as a double spread on the inner sleeve of Jaspar’s latest CD release, “Close to me”.

This is Jaspar’s most arresting political album to date and it comes at a crucial time in the current turbulent American (and hence global) landscape. Appealing through the logic and power of Nature, Jaspar’s beacon is for reason, rationale, dialogue – but not without the foreboding consequence of lessons that are not being heeded.

Every track is a gem and the lyrics and rhythms exude a conscious grasp of her role as a songstress with profound, if not quiet, dynamism.

The genius of Jaspar is that she exhibits an eclectic approach to her ‘genre’ through an informed and deeply intuitive, intellectually compassionate sensibility that makes her creative output unique and timeless. Jaspar has distilled a myriad of influences into a wonderous concoction of blue-grass to ballad, folk to rock, indi to goth. In this sense Jaspar has created her own genre!

There is an anthem-like quality to many of the tracks, most notably “And I Listened”, “Symbols of freedom”, “Rain is the sound”, and “Marley’s plea”. And yet, due to the intimate renditions the epic quality of the work is underplayed as a soothing balm, which results in a complete contrast to the madness gripping the world. This does not imply that one should just shut the world out, but to stay open. Stay aware.

“And I listened” implores people to pay attention, to hear the conflicting information, but to not be fooled by the shouting, to sift out what is ‘true’ from the flotsam… to hone one’s inner radar.

“Symbols of freedom” takes her country to task for the corrosion/implosion of the American dream while gently reminding them of what ‘America’ is supposed to represent.

“Rain is the sound” exhorts her country(wo)men (and the world) to unite as a common humanity.

And if, after listening to “Marley’s plea’ (an epic ballad with echoes of the ‘rhyme of the ancient mariner’ yet directly influenced by “A Christmas Carol”) your life is not quickened, dear America, you deserve the fate of your own destruction. The call has been for you to wake up collectively (given your war history) and one wonders if it is not already too late! This track in particular is an instant American classic and is destined to be covered by any and every folk singer worth their salt.

Buy this album, listen to Jaspar. Realise how clearly she thinks/communicates/performs/shines. Put the CD on repeat. Bask in its beauty.

BLOG TEN *INDICATES NOT THE REAL NAME

(Apologies but time frames here are a little hazy)

Prior to contacting Legal Aid the Labour Court office began to offer free advice on Wednesdays (August?) to applicants that needed direction. I was given an opportunity to speak with a lawyer. The lawyer assigned to me, took one look at the first award and said that I would have to request ‘an order of court’ to endorse the first award. He did not even look at the second award. I was deeply shocked as this advice had not taken into account the CIRCUMSTANCES of the existence of the second award and I felt that his response was ‘expedient’. I asked him what about CONSEQUENCE. The second award had blocked the first award from being honoured. He did not reply but offered to give me a consultation at his offices. This consultation did not materialize until November. He told me I had to choose one of the awards and to contest it. He would give me no advice on which award to contest, or why.

LEGAL AID

When I phoned Legal Aid initially to make an appointment to see a lawyer, I was told by the front of house receptionist *Cindy that they did not ‘make appointments’ and that I must come in and queue like everybody else.

My meeting with Mr. *Shabangu in November 2010, was extremely cordial. He requested that I get him a copy of the original AD in the Sunday Tribune, as he needed proof that the Brettonwood advertisement did not mention anything about a UTE post, and that the post advertised was a GB post.

On supplying him with this advertisement (thanks newspaper archives) he told me that he would have to ‘resend’ my application ‘and begin the process’ all over again. I was a little surprised, as five months had already lapsed since I had submitted the ‘Notice of Motion’ and I had just organised for SNELLER RECORDINGS to uplift the CD. I left this procedure in his capable hands.

Having heard nothing more after two weeks, I went in to see him – waiting my turn in the queue. At this meeting his attitude towards me changed. I felt that there was something that I had done that had irked him, but could not work out what it was. However at this meeting I told him that I considered BOTH awards to be invalid as they were both based on ASSUMPTIONS.

THE INVALIDITY OF BOTH AWARDS

THE FIRST AWARD:

While this award was in my favour it fails to draw its premise on sound reasoning: the commissioner claimed that I was on a fixed term contract (which has never existed) but which was to expire as of a year from the date of appointment. It is entirely beyond me how he arrived at this conclusion. It becomes obvious he is extremely loath to use the word ‘probation’.

The OBVIOUS conclusion would have been to acknowledge that I was ON PROBATION during this period of employment in line with being offered a permanent post.

In other words this award contains within its wording an ‘admission of guilt’ i.e. that I was employed in a fixed term capacity.

I rejected this unequivocally.

THE SECOND AWARD

The final two pages (cut and paste) of this award is so bizarrely worded that it is a wonder that it was written by a person with any kind of legal qualification and makes breathtaking and convenient assumptions in line with wishful thinking….the silly legality of trying to fit a square peg into a triangle.

1. it states that I was employed as a UTE without a shred of evidence.
2. ignores the fact that a UTE holds no legal jurisdiction whatsoever.
3. this statement is so ‘out of coherence’ with the first award it beggars belief that it was written by the same person.
4. *Elm states: “The more ‘probable version’ is that of Mr. *Sithole.” (at this stage I did not know that Mr. *Sithole had withheld pages 1-5 of my application forms as presented in Mr. Dingane’s court papers 2^nd Arb. hearing) Mr. *Sithole was quite clearly lying and deliberately thwarted justice, and this statement was meant to endorse the lie.
5. *Sithole’s claim is based on the fact that I was employed in a ‘fixed term contract’ which does not exist. How then does one PRESUME that it does – in all due fairness of adjudication?

No lawyers wanted to engage with these issues.

10. *C. ELM PRESENTS HIS VERSION OF THE RELEASE OF THE SECOND AWARD TWO YEARS AFTER I OPENED CASE D593/10.

Two years after submitting the Notice of Motion, Mr. *Elm submitted his reasons for the existence of the second award (2012). This was never delivered to me. A contingency lawyer (who sat with my case for TWO YEARS) and who finally told me that there was ‘nothing they could do’ informed me of its existence. I presumed at the time, that this would have been for his attention. He did nothing. I submitted my response as part of my ‘Heads of Argument’ to the Labour Court case D593/10 in November 2014 which was issued to all the opponents.

NOT WELL PHYSICALLY, EMOTIONALLY, PSYCHOLOGICALLY.

It seems to escape everyone’s attention that during this time I was not well, and that my main aim was to heal. In fact it has taken me a further three years to feel that I was anywhere near a threshold of normality. I thank my son in particular, as he qualified as a Kettlebell Instructor in 2011 and I had access to free classes. This, together with the synchronicity of being self-employed within a creative and rewarding product cannot be underestimated in relation to this healing process.

Adding to the anxiety however, was the fact that I was getting more and more into debt as it was impossible to pursue my teaching career.

FINANCIAL SUPPORT/INNOVATION/SELF EMPLOYMENT

I was initially supported financially by my son and this enabled me to get through the first year (2010).

During this time I started making fabric wallets. I thus had to fall back on my **survival technique that had supported me under apartheid. I could never have imagined this happening in the (now no longer) ‘new’ South Africa.

(** Fabric Wallets: this was the design and format I had innovated in the ‘80’s due to the constant opening and closing of clubs by the polizei. As a DJ it was no work, no pay. This ‘self-employment’ enabled me to survive financially during these periods. My overheads were always kept to a minimum. I had lived in ‘grey’ areas throughout the apartheid years)

But by 2010, the markets were changing rapidly. Ten Rand now was worth R100 then. The entire emphasis had become commercialized and few people made their own products. So, in many ways, it was like trying to break new ground all over again. The markets are also completely unpredictable and nothing could be expected from one week to the next. Income from the sales of wallets had to feed me, pay the rent, electricity (I eventually reduced my electricity account to R200 pm. Aren’t I a good boy!!) AND to buy fabrics, braids, cottons!

PROBLEMS WITH LEGAL AID

After waiting a further three weeks I went in to get some updates from Mr. *Shabangu. I followed the usual procedure.

Mr. *Shabangu was very rude and said that I “cannot just come in here and expect to have a meeting with him.” That I had to “make an appointment.” I told him that this was not Legal Aid policy. He said I had to make a phone call and that he could not respond presently. I mentioned this to the front of house receptionist as I left.

I phoned to make an appointment. Mr. *Shabangu told me he was unavailable for a meeting. In fact he stalled until the 15^th December when everyone went on leave. This took me by surprise.

I lodged a complaint with the supervisor, Mr. *Mehthra. He said he would put Mr. *Vosloo onto the case. So January 2012 my hopes were once more raised.

Initially Mr. *Vosloo was conducive to the matter at hand. I explained to him what had happened with the CD via SNELLER RECORDINGS and suggested to him that we use my recording to try and save a bit of time.

(Much later, it became obvious that had I NOT recorded the proceedings that the tape would ‘never have been found’. This could only mean one thing: the ELRC and the Ed. Dept. had something to hide.)

By now it was March of 2011. FIVE months since Legal Aid had taken up the case.

Yet, I was left to do all the legal work i.e. submitting the transcription. As I had to do this work myself, I took the opportunity to REASSESS the initial ‘NOTICE OF MOTION’ and to request greater financial compensation due to the extraordinary time delays. At the same time, I discovered the existence of the FRAUDULENT CONTRACT – noticing the date of issue and the updated salary scale – somewhere in my mess of documents. I included this in my submission of the transcription.

The first thing Mr. *Vosloo said to me after reading the transcription was:

“Life is unfair.”

I was astounded.

He then said that the Judge of the Labour Court “would come to the same conclusion as the commissioner”.

I was disturbed.

He then said that the Judge would make this ruling “on the evidence of the transcription” alone.

I was dumbfounded.

My initial response was: what is the purpose of a Judge? Does a Judge not Judge? How does a Judge go about making a decision? My interaction with Mr. *Vosloo raised a string of doubts as to the integrity of the courts.

I lodged a complaint with Mr. *Mehthra. I lodged this complaint in writing via email. I had no response from Mr. *Mehthra a week later, so I phoned his office and requested a reason. He said he had received no such email. I immediately sent it again and followed up with a phone call. Yes, he had received it.

At this same time I discovered a Winet printout dated 2009:09:01 which the finance office had printed out and given to me as a result of a delayed adjustment to my salary as part of the OSD (agreed to in the initial interview).

WINET SALARY ADJUSTMENT PRINTOUT – SEE ATTACHMENT:

This is the form that shows my RANK as TEACHER and the Salary Level as 06. (It was claimed in Mr. *Dingane’s bundle 2^nd arbitration, where there was an 05 next to my name that this meant that I was ‘temporarily’ employed. Yet nobody could adequately explain this 06. This aspect was conveniently IGNORED by the 2^nd comissioner.

Note my salary level as R40836 (1997) = R3,403 PM. After tax and other deductions, this came to about R2,700 PM.

MEETING WITH MR. *MEHTHRA

The initial meeting with Mr. *Mehthra was pleasant. He said that I would now be consulting through him. He did not discuss the letter I had sent him concerning my complaints and responses to Mr. *Vosloo. This bothered me. Mr. Mehthra asked me what my ‘appointment status’ was. I said that I was offered a permanent post at the interview and that this would mean I was on probation at the time of my dismissal. I stated that at the time of the arbitration hearing that I was unaware that ‘permanent’ related to an APPOINTMENT STATUS and that I had therefore prepared my argument on the basis of the fact that I could never have been a UTE. This line of argument was completely IGNORED by both Mr. *Sithole and Mr. C. *Elm. I then presented the WINET printout to Mr. Mehthra who made a photocopy of the document and said he would get back to me.

At the next presumed meeting with him he said that my case had been assigned to Mr. *Vosloo and Mr. *Shangase and that I had no choice but to consult with them.

Speechless, I complied.

Silence surrounding the submission of the Winet Salary Printout was deafening.

I then had a grueling two hour session with Mr. *Vosloo and Mr. *Shabangu.

The meeting was driven by Mr. *Vosloo. We went through the transcription in quite a bit of detail. He repeated the fact that the Judge would come to the same conclusion as the commissioner. He could not answer my question regarding the fact of why my statement of being employed permanently (and that I was on probation) was so conveniently ignored. I clarified the point made in the hearing that there was a discrepancy between what the Ed. Dept. wanted to think was happening in the school and the actual reality. He could not answer me why any legal conclusion could be drawn from a ‘status’ (UTE) that had no legal jurisdiction.

I emphasised that BOTH awards were invalid and that I wanted the judge to see BOTH awards and that I felt something was highly amiss if the Judge was being SHIELDED from making a judgment based on these events.

A CONFLICT OF INTERESTS

I once more approached Mr. *Mehthra and requested that I be allowed to take a recording device into our meetings as I often left the meetings in confusion and needed to listen to the recordings post the meeting to get a clearer perception of what was required of me.

Mr. *Methra FLATLY REFUSED. He said that if I was unhappy about procedure that I could take my services elsewhere. I requested his reasons in writing. He refused.

In between all of this, I received notification from Mr. *Khulata that money offered in the first award was awaiting my signature for collection.

I was astounded.

After 18 months, the Education Department was going to absolve themselves of all further responsibility and honour the first award. I explained to Mr. *Khulata telephonically that this award comes 18 months too late and that it has failed to take note of the CONSEQUENCES of the subsequent collusions and obfuscations of the Ed. Dpt. and the ELRC. I therefore rejected this offer.

I asked Mr. Mehthra if Legal Aid had any idea of this offer and he said no.

I was then due for a follow up meeting with Legal Aid and prepared to take in a recording device. I phoned Mr. *Vosloo and informed him of my intention. He rejected the meeting.

I requested that he return my files to the court rooms.