October 6, 06:55IOL

Former Chief of Staff Challenges Dismissal at CCMA, Demanding R1.44 Million Severance Pay

Build One South Africa (BOSA) leader Mmusi Maimane is embroiled in a dispute with former chief of staff Thania Koenraad at the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA). Koenraad proposed a mutual separation package worth R1.44 million as part of the proceedings regarding her alleged unfair dismissal.

BOSA rejects claims that it unfairly decided not to renew Thania Koenraad's fixed-term contract. Koenraad stated that her relationship with Mmusi predated her official employment at BOSA, noting that their connection was built on faith, family, public service, and a shared conviction in the need for different political leadership in South Africa.

The core of the disagreement revolves around Koenraad's fixed-term contract, which was valid until June 30, 2026, and allegations that BOSA's conduct created a reasonable expectation of her continued employment after the contract expired.

Koenraad reported that she underwent an appraisal on June 5, 2026, receiving positive feedback, but on the same day, she was informed that her contract would not be renewed. Koenraad's lawyers from Patton Williams Inc initially sent a letter to BOSA challenging the non-renewal decision, asserting that it was substantial and procedurally unfair.

A subsequent letter dated June 11, 2026, offered to resolve the dispute through a mutual separation agreement.

Allegations of Misconduct

An anonymous whistleblower revealed that Mmusi dismissed Koenraad while her husband was dying of cancer. According to the source, this was driven by the party's desire to save money for Nobuntu's election campaign. This source also noted that the party was laying off employees while promoting the Salary Bill in Parliament, which aims to eliminate pay discrimination and promote transparency.

The informant called Mmusi Maimane a 'terrible person to work with,' adding that people should know who they are voting for, and criticized his outward virtue.

Chief of Staff Appointment

Koenraad, now a widow, began working at BOSA around February 1, 2024, under a series of fixed-term contracts before being appointed Chief of Staff from July 1, 2024, to June 30, 2026. Her gross monthly salary was R60,000. Lawyers described the Chief of Staff role as central and integral to BOSA, encompassing executive coordination, strategic continuity, operational alignment, and the execution of current organizational obligations.

Lawyers argued that during the performance review meeting on June 5, 2026, attended by BOSA representatives, including Mmusi Maimane, Nobuntu Khlazo-Webster, and an HR representative, the feedback was positive across several aspects such as stakeholder engagement, parliamentary coordination, donor relations, development of organizational systems, and contribution to strategic processes.

However, later that same day, she was allegedly told verbally in front of colleagues that her contract would not be renewed. She was also offered the opportunity to begin a handover of duties and told she could apply for the position if it were advertised.

Expectation of Continued Employment

Koenraad's lawyers insisted that BOSA's actions created a reasonable expectation that she would be retained in the position after June 30. They cited her continued work under successive fixed-term contracts, her appointment to the higher role of Chief of Staff, and what they described as the permanent nature of her functions. Furthermore, they mentioned her involvement in preparing BOSA for the 2026 local government elections.

According to correspondence, Koenraad was included in strategic discussions on May 22, 2026, where she was considered part of the campaign team and expected to participate in ongoing campaign work, including fundraising and strategic initiatives. Lawyers contended that these obligations extended beyond the expiration of her contract and reinforced her expectation of continued employment. They also contested any reliance by BOSA on contractual wording stating that a fixed-term appointment does not create an expectation of renewal.

Koenraad offers R1.44 million to settle the dispute

Despite insisting that the alleged non-renewal was unfair, Koenraad subsequently indicated that she did not wish to engage in unnecessary litigation if the matter could be resolved. In the June 11 letter, marked 'without prejudice,' her lawyers stated she was willing to consider a mutual separation agreement that would terminate the employment relationship. The proposed agreement would see her employment ending by mutual consent on June 19, 2026, or another date agreed upon by the parties. In exchange, BOSA would pay her a severance amount equivalent to 24 months' remuneration—R1.44 million, based on her R60,000 monthly salary. The proposed sum would include all standard entitlements due to Koenraad up to the agreed termination date, including salary, accrued leave pay, reimbursed expenses, and other statutory or contractual rights. Her lawyers also suggested BOSA apply to the South African Revenue Service for a tax clearance certificate for the severance payment based on the termination occurring due to operational requirements or restructuring. The net severance amount was to be paid within five business days of BOSA receiving the SARS tax clearance certificate, unless another date was agreed upon.

BOSA Rejects Allegations

BOSA, through lawyers representing Maimane, rejected all accusations. In its response, the organization's lawyers stated they had no intention of 'litigating via correspondence' but refuted the claims made in Koenraad's letter. They maintained that the contractual terms were clear. The fixed-term contract explicitly stipulated that it would end on June 30, 2026, and Koenraad had agreed in writing that the expiry of the contract did not constitute dismissal nor create an expectation of renewal or permanent/indefinite employment. BOSA's lawyers asserted that their client denied that any statements, commitments, practices, or conduct created a reasonable expectation of renewal or continuation of employment. The lawyers noted: 'Our client's position is that the contract expires by the passage of time on June 30, 2026, in accordance with its explicit terms.' They added that nothing in Koenraad's lawyers' correspondence changed this position. BOSA also stated that Koenraad's remuneration, accrued leave, and any final payments would be processed in accordance with her employment contract, applicable legislation, and organizational records.

Koenraad's Questions Regarding Work Environment at BOSA

Koenraad also raised questions regarding the management atmosphere she experienced while working at BOSA. She claimed that some interactions with Maimane were humiliating, intimidating, and sometimes amounted to bullying. She recounted: 'Over time, some interactions affected my self-confidence around him. When he asked something, I would sometimes speak too fast because I was worried about answering incorrectly or anticipating criticism. Even something as routine as occasionally driving him caused stress because criticism of my driving made me nervous when he was in the car.'

Koenraad emphasized that her public dismissal left her completely humiliated. She said the announcement was made in front of colleagues without preparing her or giving her a chance to understand what was happening. 'I experienced it as humiliation,' she stated. She mentioned that Maimane later characterized this change as a promotion or confirmation of Koenraad's role as parliamentarian. She stressed that her concern was not whether she felt her employment ended at that moment, but how the change in her status was publicly communicated and the confusion caused by continuing to receive work.

In response to an IOL query, BOSA HR consultant Dr. Findi Mosmi stated that Koenraad had not been Maimane's chief of staff for at least a year. 'She worked in BOSA's parliamentary operations role, and her fixed-term contract ended on June 30, 2026. The allegations against Dr. Maimane are false and border on slander. BOSA will provide a more comprehensive response to the questions asked within 24 hours,' Mosmi said.

Similar stories

iol.co.zaSeptember 30, 18:51

Labour Appeal Court overturns decision to pay former CCMA commissioner R176,000 in compensation

The Labour Appeal Court overturned a ruling that required the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) to pay a former commissioner over R176,000 in outstanding salary arrears. The court ruled that the Labour Court had mistakenly treated the collective agreement as the contractual basis for the remuneration claim.

The appeal concerned SN, who challenged his salary after transitioning from the status of a partial CCMA commissioner to that of a full commissioner. SN approached the Labour Court asserting his right to be paid at the P6 salary level.

He put forward two alternative arguments. The first was the existence of an implied or express term in his employment contract stipulating that his remuneration should not be lower than what he received as a partial commissioner. Secondly, he referred to the CCMA Wage Structure Agreement (WSA) concluded with the Commission Staff Association in January 2018.

The Labour Court dismissed the argument regarding the implied contractual term allowing him to maintain his previous income. However, it upheld the alternative claim, establishing that the WSA applied to him after he became a full commissioner, granting him the right to remuneration at the 80th percentile of the P6 level. Consequently, the court ordered the CCMA to pay him R176,174.32, which represented the difference between the remuneration received and the amount the court believed he should have received according to the WSA. Subsequently, the CCMA appealed this decision.

SN disputed his salary from the outset

SN was appointed as a Level B partial commissioner in July 2017 for a fixed term expiring in June 2023. In October 2020, he successfully applied to transition to the status of a full commissioner and was transferred from the CCMA regional office in Cape Town to Tshwane. Both changes took effect on December 1, 2020.

When he became a full commissioner, he was offered an annual package exceeding R615,000, equivalent to more than R51,000 per month at the P7 level. He disputed the remuneration amount from the beginning. According to his evidence, he earned approximately R61,500 per month while fully engaged as a partial commissioner, based on a daily rate of just over R2,900 for 21 days.

He also insisted that he should be placed at the P6 level. Initially, SN refused to sign an employment contract because he felt the salary did not correspond to the category attached to his appointment. After discussions with the CCMA HR manager, he eventually signed the contract on January 28, 2021, adding a handwritten clause regarding the remuneration dispute and stating that his signature should not be construed as acceptance of the offer. The CCMA rejected his request for modification, insisting that he was correctly placed within its salary progression system. He continued to work and received R51,281 per month until his dismissal for misconduct on February 22, 2022.

The appeal focused on the source of the right to salary

The Labour Appeal Court stated that the core issue in the Labour Court's decision was that it failed to determine the contractual source of SN's alleged right to P6 remuneration. The appellate court noted that remuneration is a material term of an employment contract, and that SN explicitly rejected the remuneration offered by the CCMA. Therefore, it reasoned, the Labour Court should have first established whether the parties had reached an agreement on the remuneration obligation before deciding what salary SN should receive.

The court held: 'In the absence of convincing evidence on this point, the basis for enforcing an alleged contractual transaction becomes questionable.'

The Labour Appeal Court pointed out that the Labour Court dismissed SN's claim based on the implied term and also found no explicit agreement to pay him remuneration at the P6 level. Thus, it effectively imposed a remuneration condition that was not demonstrated to arise from an agreement between the parties.

The dispute concerning the collective agreement followed a different legal path. The appellate court also found that the Labour Court had mixed two different jurisdictions. SN pursued his case as a contractual claim under Section 77(3) of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act (BCEA). But after dismissing his contractual claim, the Labour Court ruled that the WSA applied to him, interpreted its provisions, and used this interpretation to establish his right to P6 remuneration. The Labour Appeal Court emphasized that the dispute regarding the interpretation and application of the collective agreement falls under Section 24 of the Labour Relations Act (LRA).

The court stressed that jurisdiction depends on the true nature of the dispute, not the label assigned by the applicant. The court stated that the Labour Court should have determined whether SN established a contractual right to P6 remuneration. Instead, it found that the Labour Court moved directly from interpreting the WSA to concluding that SN had a contractual right to the corresponding remuneration.

'The Labour Court never answered this question,' said the appeal court, referring to the contractual source of the alleged right.

WSA was not automatically part of the employment contract

The Labour Appeal Court further determined that the WSA is a tool of collective bargaining and is not in itself a term of SN's individual employment contract. Consequently, the question was not merely whether the WSA supported its interpretation of salary structures. The critical question was whether he had established a contractually enforceable right under Section 77(3) of the BCEA to the remuneration he claimed.

The court found that the Labour Court failed to explain how the WSA was incorporated into SN's employment contract or how it created a specific contractual right that he sought. Instead, the Labour Court effectively created this right by interpreting and applying the WSA, and then enforced it as if it were a contractual right. The Appeal Court ruled that such an approach blurs the distinction between contractual disputes under Section 77(3) of the BCEA and collective agreement disputes under Section 24 of the LRA.

Labour Court's ruling is set aside

The Labour Appeal Court concluded that the Labour Court erred significantly by granting relief on a legal basis that was not supported by the cause of action asserted by SN. It noted that after dismissing the alleged implied contractual term, the Labour Court should have found another contractual basis for the P6 right. It failed to do so. Instead, it ventured into the territory of interpreting and applying the WSA, which is a collective agreement dispute governed by Section 24 of the LRA. Therefore, the Labour Appeal Court upheld the CCMA's appeal and set aside the Labour Court's ruling. The substituted order dismissed SN's claim and ordered him to pay the CCMA's costs. The Appeal Court also ordered SN to pay the CCMA's costs for the appeal.