A high-ranking Western Cape government official says irreconcilable differences, dress sense and diet were some of the reasons he tranferred a minister’s spokesperson.
Steven Otter, who represented Transport and Public Works MEC Robin Carlisle, is fighting to get his job back.
Last week, Otter filed urgent papers with the Cape Town Labour Court in an attempt to force Carlisle to reinstate him, even though another person is already working in the position.
Otter claimed he was tranferred for being a vegetarian and a teetotaller, and that nothing in his performance review had indicated a problem.
He was transferred to the Department of the Premier’s strategic communications unit, which he claims is a demotion, an assertion challenged in the papers.
Responding to his papers, Hector Eliott, head of Carlisle’s ministry, has asked for the application to be dismissed, with costs, as Otter had not exhausted internal grievance avenues available to him.
In responding papers, Eliott says that if Otter is to be reinstated to the position of spokesman, he (Eliott) would be “left with no choice but to resign or to seek a position elsewhere in the provincial government”.
In the papers, he says Otter’s dress code was frequently “somewhat undesirable”, in conflict with the recommendations of his first performance review, which requested that Otter adopt a “business casual” mode of dress.
Regarding his diet, Eliott said Otter’s unique diet occasionally presented difficulties when he accompanied Carlisle to functions where meals were served.
“On many such occasions no specific provision is made for individuals who cannot eat meat, salt, sugar, transfats, fast-releasing carbohydrates, and who cannot drink water with ice.”
In the papers, Eliott describes his relationship with Otter as “acrimonious” and acknowledges losing his temper and using expletives during an argument.
Eliott lists a number of instances where Otter had failed in his duties.
He says he did not keep all the records, but says those which do exist show examples of Otter’s disrespect, insubordination and sarcasm.
All six incidents on record, in which Otter had allegedly been disrespectful to officials and had not done his job correctly, showed that there were a number of incompatibilities which made it extremely difficult to retain Otter in the position of spokesman, Eliott said.
Otter’s suggestion that the new position amounted to demotion was untrue, Eliott said, as Otter was still employed as a media officer.
“A request to transfer the application to another position was not entirely based on his performance.
“It came down to irreconcilable personality clashes between him and I, and some crucial mistakes that he had made in the negligent manner in which he executed his duties,” Eliott said.
The matter will be heard on July 19.
Cape Argus