Baby Marzanne nanny sacked for baby bashers access

Lycanthrope

Lycanthrope

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
13,621
Reaction score
592
Location
United Kingdom
Franscina Sekhu has approached the Commission for Concilliation, Mediation an Arbitation (CCMA) for help following what she considers her unfair dismissal.

Franscina was the nanny of baby Marzanne Kruger who was badly assaulted during a house robbery in the family’s home recently.

The nanny was also badly assaulted and both she and the baby were rushed to hospital in critical conditions after the incident.

The star newspaper reports that Franscina has been fired by the Kruger family for allegedly opening the door for the perpetrators, who had done some construction work for the family before the incident.

According to Franscina she opened the door because the man had said that he was there to check on some work he had done before. As a result she says she even offered him tea before he sat down with her and the baby, which was on her lap at the time.

That is the last thing she remembers before waking up in hospital.

Sekhu’s mother is reported as having said that she and her daughter were kicked out like dogs when they went to the Kruger household to speak to the family.

The Krugers are expected to be served with CCMA papers on Wednesday in terms of which Franscina is looking for maximum compenstation.

A spokesman for the Kruger family, friend Kobus Grobler, said he was not aware that she had been fired.

Baby Marzanne is still in intensive care as a result of the injuries she suffered on the day in question.
Click to expand...

Source: Newstime

I'm sorry, but allowing a stranger (I don't care if he's the plumber or the gardener or your bestest best friend) into a house that does not belong to you, which is your "professional environment" without getting the "okay" from your employers constitutes nothing more than reckless endangerment.

I don't believe this woman has a leg to stand on. I feel bad for her, I appreciate the fact that she was also a victim, however, I feel no sympathy for her getting the sack.
 
Lycanthrope said:
Source: Newstime

I'm sorry, but allowing a stranger (I don't care if he's the plumber or the gardener or your bestest best friend) into a house that does not belong to you, which is your "professional environment" without getting the "okay" from your employers constitutes nothing more than reckless endangerment.

I don't believe this woman has a leg to stand on. I feel bad for her, I appreciate the fact that she was also a victim, however, I feel no sympathy for her getting the sack.
Click to expand...

It depends what her instructions from her employers were. If they explicitly told her never to open a door to strangers (which we imagine they would have done in the times in which we live), then yes, I agree.
 
Ninja'd said:
Not opening the door would've just delayed the inevitable.
Click to expand...
No... it would have saved her & and the baby. Remember the criminal went because he knew she would let him in because she knew him. She'll probably win the unfair dismissal charge. The family probably needs someone to blame & are turning on her.
 
blunomore said:
It depends what her instructions from her employers were. If they explicitly told her never to open a door to strangers (which we imagine they would have done in the times in which we live), then yes, I agree.
Click to expand...

Come now, those guys worked there recently, and the guy said they coming to check on what they worked on. I would not hold it against my maid. Instead, I would target the company I contracted to do the renovations, and lay a civil suit against them...
 
R13... said:
No... it would have saved her & and the baby. Remember the criminal went because he knew she would let him in because she knew him. She'll probably win the unfair dismissal charge. The family probably needs someone to blame & are turning on her.
Click to expand...

But it was her fault for letting him in. Who do you think the family should blame then?
 
sox63 said:
Come now, those guys worked there recently, and the guy said they coming to check on what they worked on. I would not hold it against my maid. Instead, I would target the company I contracted to do the renovations, and lay a civil suit against them...
Click to expand...

I disagree with the 1st part of your post. Of course we have no idea what the domestic worker's instructions were from her employers, but most reasonable people would instruct a domestic (or even a child left alone at home) that they are not allowed to let in ANYONE, UNLESS the employer/parents tell them that so-and-so will be coming to the house today.

As far as the second part of your post is concerned - based on what exactly would you sue the company who employed these thugs?
 
It might not have been the workers intent to cause the family, and herself, harm, but she was negligent in allowing somebody into the house. At the very least she should have called somebody to confirm that it is ok to let the man in. She could also have offered to check on the work, to see if it needed attention or not. Lots of options, but then hindsight is 20/20.
 
blunomore said:
I disagree with the 1st part of your post. Of course we have no idea what the domestic worker's instructions were from her employers, but most reasonable people would instruct a domestic (or even a child left alone at home) that they are not allowed to let in ANYONE, UNLESS the employer/parents tell them that so-and-so will be coming to the house today.
Click to expand...

Lets agree to disgree

As far as the second part of your post is concerned - based on what exactly would you sue the company who employed these thugs?
Click to expand...

Its in their negligence that they hired these "thugs", as you put it, which I'm willing to bet have done this before. And IIRC two, if not one of them are illegals from Mozambique? I think in a civil claim, a good attorney could argue the case. And the money from that company would probably go a long way in helping with medical bills and the care of Marzanne when she pulls through.
 
sox63 said:
Its in their negligence that they hired these "thugs", as you put it, which I'm willing to bet have done this before. And IIRC two, if not one of them are illegals from Mozambique? I think in a civil claim, a good attorney could argue the case. And the money from that company would probably go a long way in helping with medical bills and the care of Marzanne when she pulls through.
Click to expand...

The issue of the contravention of labour laws (hiring illegal immigrants) cannot be excused and should be addressed.

The fact that these employees of theirs committed a crime, cannot be blamed on them.
 
I would also fire a domestic worker for letting in people into my house without confirming with me first. It doesn't matter if such people are known or not she still has to check with me first as the home owner.
 
blunomore said:
The issue of the contravention of labour laws (hiring illegal immigrants) cannot be excused and should be addressed.

The fact that these employees of theirs committed a crime, cannot be blamed on them.
Click to expand...

And yet these parents are blaming their employee? Had proper labour laws been followed, a criminal background check would have shown any unpleasant details. That to me puts them liable. We expect the same of security companies guarding our complexes, why not expect construction companies you allow access into your home?

Just my opinion, it been something thats been bugging me since some friends of mine were cleaned out of their belongings...
 
Can the parents still play the sympathy card at the CCMA even though the nanny was also assaulted?
 
I'm sorry but if my domestic let a stranger into my home while I'm not there, she's gone. I don't care if the man was in the home recently to do repairs, does not mean she should let him in again.
 
sox63 said:
And yet these parents are blaming their employee? Had proper labour laws been followed, a criminal background check would have shown any unpleasant details. That to me puts them liable. We expect the same of security companies guarding our complexes, why not expect construction companies you allow access into your home?

Just my opinion, it been something thats been bugging me since some friends of mine were cleaned out of their belongings...
Click to expand...

From my posts, you will note that I did not agree with the fact that they fired their domestic worker. It depends on the facts of the case, i.e. what their instructions to her were.

As far as the liability of the construction company, the laws of vicarious liability will in all likelihood not allow you to hold the employer (company) liable.
 
sox63 said:
And yet these parents are blaming their employee? Had proper labour laws been followed, a criminal background check would have shown any unpleasant details. That to me puts them liable. We expect the same of security companies guarding our complexes, why not expect construction companies you allow access into your home?

Just my opinion, it been something thats been bugging me since some friends of mine were cleaned out of their belongings...
Click to expand...

Sox, you have a point. There may be liability vesting in the contracting company if the employees are on duty, If it happened while the work was being done there would be a clear case for a civil claim and possibly criminal charges. If the event happened while work wasn't happening on the site but during the normal period of employment, the civil claim becomes weaker. If the attack happened after the employment contract ended there cannot be a civil claim.

If the contractor found out that its employees were wanted murderers and then dismissed them and failed to inform clients who may now be exposed there is a good case for a civil claim.

If you need case law to justify the argument - claims have been successfully brought against the Minister of Police (or whatever the PC title is these days) for policemen who raped a woman.

Security companies have legislation that governs their actions and it probably has something about a criminal record excluding you from employment. There are no such restrictions when it comes to mixing cement in a wheel barrow.
 
sox63 said:
And yet these parents are blaming their employee? Had proper labour laws been followed, a criminal background check would have shown any unpleasant details. That to me puts them liable. We expect the same of security companies guarding our complexes, why not expect construction companies you allow access into your home?

Just my opinion, it been something thats been bugging me since some friends of mine were cleaned out of their belongings...
Click to expand...

Sox, this is all besides the point.
It does not sound like this dude came to do construction work. It sounds more like a social visit that went horribly wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X