INSETA claimed to investigate a complaint at PSG Wealth that included making unlawful financial demands on unemployed youth recruited for learnerships. The findings are hidden, INSETA claims it protects PSG Wealth, not the public. That’s rubbish.
In February 2017 INSETA committed to investigating a complaint about PSG Wealth. INSETA confirmed the contract was unlawful yet allowed PSG Wealth to falsify the facts and misrepresent the situation in an apology to the victim.
INSETA failed to follow protocol and inform Labour and the public.
INSETA must come Clean on PSG Wealth
Rules of Engagement: Transparency First
I agitate online. I don’t deal with organisations via email or phone, they simply bully or lie. Confrontations are public so issues are addressed openly and everyone empowered to participate.
Sometimes emails are sent as a matter of necessity, sometimes as a courtesy.
INSETA / PSG Wealth Facebook Complaint 14/12/17
After months of waiting for a report, not a casual email, I posted this on the INSETA Facebook page because that’s how I roll.:
“A formal complaint against PSG Wealth regarding learnerships was lodged and addressed by INSETA who then proceeded to hide it from the public. This is gross negligence and against the interests of the public. We want proof that INSETA informed Labour, that #PSGWealth was investigated and that proper steps were taken to protect past and current employees.”
Dear Leonie Hall, I have taken careful note of your complaint. I have checked internally with the relevant department around the matter. Based on all the information I have received, this matter was resolved in February 2017 according to the documentation in my possession…
...Please could you contact me on email email@example.com – Manager in the Office of the CEO or call 0113818900. The person at reception will also be able to provide you with my cellphone number should I not be available at the time. At INSETA, we pride ourselves in ensuring fair and equitable standards across the board. If you feel that this is not in order, there are platforms or you to engage with us.
DON’T ENGAGE WITH UNTRUSTWORTHY DYSFUNCTIONAL ENTITIES ON THEIR TERMS
My response (at this point I had already directed an email demand to Sandra):
I have emailed Sandra Dunn (INSETA CEO) and anticipate a response. We require an official report reflecting that the DoL was involved and that there are no further victims. I appreciate your comments however INSETA has my contact information on file. I’m not able to take everyone’s calls in the same way you are able to, I’m merely a citizen, not an organisation.
In addition, where were your findings made available to the public?
Lies About the Protection of Information Bill from INSETA
Hi Leonie. Due to the protection of information bill, we cannot disclose employer-employee details to the public. Under what sound evidence are you making these claims against INSETA. I am sure you are aware of what INSETA mandate entails. Can we discuss this matter telephonically to ensure that no assumptions are drawn from hearsay accusations?
Also, the person who you are representing in this correspondence should have given you feedback on the outcome.
Take a Stand Against B/S
LH: I prefer to ‘discuss’ in writing. So you’re saying the public does not have a right to know that members of the public signed illegal labour contracts?
I know that the person did not have to pay – what about the others?
This is a matter that should have been investigated beyond the case you are raising.
So you’re saying the public does not have the right to know that an illegal claim against another member of the public was dropped after your investigation? What about claims made against other victims? Did other victims pay and was there restitution for them?
THE PUBLIC DOES NOT NEED TO KNOW
Adeline: Your view again states what the public does not need to know. All persons who were involved were informed of the outcome. Did they not share this information with you.
Adeline kept trying to redirect my questioning and has just opened the INSETA up to a lawsuit. It’s untrue that a company that has broken the law is protected from public disclosure. The victim has a right to be protected – not the perpetrator. I will reveal everything as INSETA is out of order.
INSETA is required to involve the Department of Labour and Union AND publish the details of the investigation on their website in order to inform the public.
LH: I’m not representing an individual, I’m asking as a concerned member of public. What restitution for other victims – didn’t you find the contract requiring learners to pay back stipends unfair thus illegal? Besides the fact that it wasn’t even a learnership!
“I submitted the complaint to INSETA – not the victim.
Where is your accountability to public stakeholders who bring matters to your attention?”
The Commitment Adeline Failed to Deliver On
Leonie, you make valid points. Allow me to look into this further. Complaints of this nature should never get to the point where the public feels that the matter has not been resolved.
Thank you Adeline, I appreciate that. This is indeed a very serious matter and I note that you cannot respond to my questions concerning the DoL and victim restitution. Please investigate why you and the public lack this insight.
I will be taking this further and will publish my findings 15 January 2018, my report includes the contract.
Adeline: Noted, I will try my best to have some feedback to you before we close next week.
LH: Thanks! This is in the interest of a free, fair democratic society.
What do you think? Should the public be warned of irregularities?
Is it your right to know if your contract has been found to be illegal after an investigation even if your own contract wasn’t being investigated?
What are the legal implications of this conversation?