Baby Marzanne nanny sacked for baby bashers access

Lycanthrope

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
13,279
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.
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.
 

blunomore

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 8, 2007
Messages
26,789
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.
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.
 

R13...

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2008
Messages
31,619
Not opening the door would've just delayed the inevitable.
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.
 

sox63

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2007
Messages
8,614
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.
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...
 

Lino

I am back
Joined
Jan 26, 2008
Messages
13,780
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.
But it was her fault for letting him in. Who do you think the family should blame then?
 

blunomore

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 8, 2007
Messages
26,789
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...
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?
 

Nod

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2005
Messages
8,938
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.
 

Albereth

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 26, 2005
Messages
15,860
Not opening the door would've just delayed the inevitable.
Bit harsh.

But if she wasn't fired now she soon would be - without apportioning blame (difficult) just how exactly would you ever trust a minder again?
 

sox63

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2007
Messages
8,614
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.
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?
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.
 

blunomore

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 8, 2007
Messages
26,789
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.
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.
 

JungleBoy

Executive Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
5,000
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.
 

sox63

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2007
Messages
8,614
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.
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...
 

Ninja'd

A Djinn
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
47,643
Can the parents still play the sympathy card at the CCMA even though the nanny was also assaulted?
 

Ronjay

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
3,467
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.
 

blunomore

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 8, 2007
Messages
26,789
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...
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.
 

Albereth

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 26, 2005
Messages
15,860
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...
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.
 

JungleBoy

Executive Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
5,000
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...
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.
 

xrapidx

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
37,417
Top