15. Dr A van It was alleged that the (2014/02/12 - 08) Substantiating Rensburg Pr Respondent did not comply in information was not Eng against accordance with the OHS Act forthcoming from the Prof R when the Complainant Complainant. That the Sandenbergh addressed safety hazards with safety issues were Pr Eng the Respondent during addressed with the (790475) construction of the University. Respondent and The Respondent allegedly did further information with not adhere to requirements in regards thereto respect of the appointment of supplied by the personnel nor did he inform administration. ECSA’s accreditation committee of the employee’s non-registration status and qualifications. It is further alleged that the Respondent lied” in an affidavit “intentionally regarding a formal grievance lodged by the Complainant. 16. R Ramphal It is alleged that the (2014/02/27 - 10) That the Investigating against V K Ori Respondent submitted a Committee considered Pr Tech Eng payment certificate which was the matter and (9470055) above the tendered price. resolved that the matter is of a commercial nature. 17. A Parsotham Subsequent to the builder (2014/04/22 - 16) That the Investigating against T W absconding, a new builder was Committee consider Harper Pr Eng tasked to assess and repair the the matter and (940368) damages resulting in a dispute resolved that there was with the engineer. It is alleged no prima facie by the Complainant that evidence of improper “the internal walls and trenches conduct by the were non-existent; the soil was Respondent.
15. Dr A van Rensburg Pr Eng against Prof R Sandenbergh Pr Eng (790475) It was alleged that the Respondent did not comply in accordance with the OHS Act when the Complainant addressed safety hazards with the Respondent during construction of the University. The Respondent allegedly did not adhere to requirements in respect of the appointment of personnel nor did he inform ECSA’s accreditation committee of the employee’s non-registration status and qualifications. It is further alleged that the Respondent “intentionally lied” in an affidavit regarding a formal grievance lodged by the Complainant. (2014/02/12 - 08) Substantiating information was not forthcoming from the Complainant. That the safety issues were addressed with the Respondent and further information with regards thereto supplied by the administration. 16. R Ramphal against V K Ori Pr Tech Eng (9470055) It is alleged that the Respondent submitted a payment certificate which was above the tendered price. (2014/02/27 - 10) That the Investigating Committee considered the matter and resolved that the matter is of a commercial nature. 17. A Parsotham against T W Harper Pr Eng (940368) Subsequent to the builder absconding, a new builder was tasked to assess and repair the damages resulting in a dispute with the engineer. It is alleged by the Complainant that “the internal walls and trenches were non-existent; the soil was (2014/04/22 - 16) That the Investigating Committee consider the matter and resolved that there was no prima facie evidence of improper conduct by the Respondent.
RNW1776-161005.docx