NewsPREMIUM

Nelson Mandela Bay spin doctor fired for gross insubordination

Kupido Baron to appeal after being found guilty on four counts of failing to carry out work assigned to him

Kupido Baron, left, and Sithembiso Soyaya
Kupido Baron, left, and Sithembiso Soyaya (SUPPLIED)

One of Nelson Mandela Bay municipality’s spin doctors, Kupido Baron, has been fired for gross insubordination.

However, he is appealing against the decision.

Baron, a media management officer, was found guilty on four counts of failing or refusing to carry out work tasks as instructed by his boss, communications director Sithembiso Soyaya, in 2024. 

He was told to submit his tools of the trade on Wednesday, which included a laptop.

The metro’s corporate services executive director, Nosipho Xhego, wrote to Baron on Monday after the disciplinary hearing concluded.

“You were found guilty on the charge levelled against you, that being the charge of gross insubordination.

“Your services are terminated with immediate effect.”

She said Baron could appeal against the decision within seven days.

Baron was charged for failing to obey instructions. This included:

  • Failing to prepare a media alert to announce the arrival of a cruise liner in November;
  • Failing to attend the arrival of the cruise liner to develop a media statement;
  • Failing to attend to a media inquiry by investigating and developing an appropriate response on the IPTS service offered by the municipality in November; and
  • Drafting a media release that provides an update on the opening of swimming pools in December.

On Wednesday, Kupido hit back at Soyaya.

He said the problems started when Soyaya issued a gag order in 2024 against other media management officers.

Baron said Soyaya stopped the media management officers from responding to media inquiries with their names, which was one of their primary roles.

Instead, Baron said he would attach his name to releases and media inquiries they had drafted.

“He unilaterally changed the conditions of service in our contracts and without taking that to the council so that the communications policy can be amended accordingly, including informing our unions,” Baron said.

Baron said the media liaison officers had filed a grievance against Soyaya in December 2024, which Soyaya countered with his own.

They accused Soyaya of a flagrant abuse of power, unfair labour practices, failure to bargain and unethical corporate communications practices.

Soyaya accused them of threatening behaviour, a lack of motivation, and not wanting to be held accountable.

“He weaponises the institution to deal with people with a different view,” Baron said.

“He was supposed to hear my grievance [about plagiarism], but even during the disciplinary hearing, it was shot down to simplify the whole issue and process.

“Firing me is his way of scaring the rest into submission.”

Baron said he was preparing documents to appeal.

Soyaya confirmed Baron’s dismissal, adding it was too early to comment on the matter as it was not final.

“Baron still has seven days to appeal the outcomes. Therefore, it would be premature to comment on the merits of the case, as that would prejudice it.”

Soyaya said he would not comment on allegations of plagiarism to avoid having a public debate on the merits of the case.

“The acting city manager is handling the matter through the appropriate administrative and legal channels.

“At the appropriate time, the matter should be directed to the office of the city manager, who is the accounting authority on all administrative matters.”

SA Municipal Workers Union regional secretary Siphokazi Lobishe said the matter was not yet over, as they could appeal.

“That’s the route we will take because we believe there’s a recourse to appeal the outcome.”

Emails exchanged between Baron and Soyaya in 2024 were submitted as evidence during the disciplinary hearing.

It shows that Soyaya instructed Baron to do work on two occasions.

In an email dated November 27, Soyaya instructed Baron to prepare a media alert announcing the arrival of a cruise liner.

“Work instruction: Kindly prepare a media alert for the cruise line visiting our shores this weekend to be distributed and shared with all media by close of business on Friday, November 29 2024.”

In response, Baron declined to carry out the task, citing the onset of the labour dispute.

“Due to a current labour dispute with the municipality regarding an illegal decision by you to unilaterally change my contractual agreement with the municipality [signed in 2006], by taking away my duties as a spokesperson for the institution and to prepare media releases for dissemination under your name, I am withholding my labour until this matter is resolved,” Baron wrote.

“I will not be giving credence to an unfair labour practice, illegally implemented by you.

“I will also not be party to you copying and pasting my work under your name for distribution to the press under the guise of quality control.”

In another email on December 17, Soyaya instructed Baron to draft a media release updating the public about the opening of swimming pools.

Baron responded: “I will comply if I can release it under my name as per my contract with the municipality.”

According to the aggravating factors outlined by the employer’s representative in the disciplinary hearing outcome report obtained by The Herald, Baron wilfully and repeatedly refused to follow direct instructions from his superior.

“Soyaya mentioned that the defiance of Baron undermines managerial authority, erodes discipline and is in direct contravention of the established municipal policies, collective agreements, including the code of conduct for municipal staff members.

“Soyaya mentioned that Baron’s persistent refusal to comply with work duties and instructions has destroyed the relationship of trust and confidence essential in the employment relationship.”

According to the employee representative’s submissions, “Baron referred to a grievance he had lodged regarding the unilateral change of his duties without his consent or consultation, stating that this action created confusion”.

Baron cited clause 6.1 of the SA Local Bargaining Council disciplinary procedure collective agreement, emphasising that disciplinary action was meant to be corrective, not punitive.

He said he still believed he could make a valuable contribution to the communications office.

“Baron stated that he does not deny the mistakes that he has made and he has learnt from this experience.”

The Herald


Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.

Comment icon