Two Gqeberha company bosses are expected to appear in the city’s magistrate’s court on Friday after they allegedly deleted data from an employee’s cellphone without her permission.
They face charges of crimen injuria and contravening the Cyber Crimes Act.
Called a “smart arse”, accused of being obtuse and having an agenda — these are some of the humiliating remarks Clarice Oelofse allegedly had to endure from her bosses at a food safety and quality company situated at Kings Court.
The criminal charges come after Oelofse, the daughter of well-known Bay attorney Danie Oelofse, attended a hearing at Entecom, where she had worked for more than 10 years as a sales and marketing manager.
On May 12, Oelofse, 40, was called into what she believed to be a counselling session with Brett and Janice Giddy about her work performance.
But during the meeting Oelofse, who recorded the conversation on her private cellphone, was called a “smart arse” at least 10 times, and told she was speaking “bulls**t”.
Oelofse said she had decided to record the interaction as it was not the first time she had allegedly been spoken to in such a manner.
During a similar incident in November, Oelofse was apparently called “obtuse” several times and told to “use your brain”.
She had taken the matter up with the CCMA at the time and an agreement was signed by all parties.
Part of the settlement agreement included that Brett Giddy acknowledge that he had acted inappropriately in terms of the language and tone he used while engaging with Oelofse, and that he would in future treat her with respect.
But, Oelofse claims, her boss reneged on the agreement and resorted to insulting her at the meeting of May 12.
She said his wife, Janice, allegedly worsened the situation by making hurtful and derogatory comments, even telling her she had a serious learning disability when she questioned the difference between Key Performance Indicators and Key Performance Areas.
When Giddy noticed that Oelofse was recording the conversation, he allegedly grabbed her phone from the boardroom table and deleted it.
After pleading for her phone to be returned, Giddy finally returned it to Oelofse, who placed it on her lap.
At that stage, Janice allegedly said to her husband “look, she’s holding it between her legs and still recording”, after which the pair laughed.
Oelofse said the incident was humiliating and degrading.
“It was hurtful. I feel violated and as a woman those types of comments are really hurtful,” she said.
Oelofse reported the matter to the police and a case of crimen injuria and contravening the Cyber Crimes Act was opened.
Police spokesperson Captain Sandra Janse van Rensburg confirmed the charges.
She said the Giddys were expected to appear in court on Friday.
Oelofse later managed to retrieve the recording, which The Herald has heard.
Emma Sadleir, one of SA’s leading experts on social media law, said Oelofse was in her full right to record the meeting.
She said the alleged actions by Giddy in grabbing her phone and deleting the data was in contravention of the Cyber Crimes Act.
According to Sadleir, the Cyber Crimes Act, which came into effect on December 1, was clear on issues regarding what can and cannot be done in terms of accessing a person’s private cellphone.
“[Oelofse] is allowed to record the meeting and can use it either in the CCMA or in the labour court,” Sadleir said.
The Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of Communication-related Information Act (Rica) also makes provisions for Oelofse’s actions, according to Sadleir.
“Rica says you can record any conversation that you are party to, but what you do with that recording is a different matter,” she said.
Sadleir said the new laws under the Cyber Crimes Act went further by making it illegal for anyone to access a personal device without the owner’s permission.
“This means it is illegal to access anything, including USBs and hard drives, without consent,” she said.
Sadleir encouraged anyone going into a meeting or disciplinary hearing to record the interaction.
Bay attorney Dean Murray said the law was clear.
“You are entitled to record it and you do not need to notify the other party that you are recording.”
Murray, however, warned that a third party not part of the conversation was not allowed to record without prior consent.
“You cannot hide behind a wall and record the meeting if you are not a party to it,” he said.
The Herald sent detailed questions to the Giddys about the alleged incident.
Their lawyer, Danie Gouws, confirmed receipt of the questions but declined to comment, saying the matter was sub judice.
HeraldLIVE
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.