Beyond confusion at BP in petrol station saga

11 September 2011 - 12:06 By Pinky Khoabane
subscribe Just R20 for the first month. Support independent journalism by subscribing to our digital news package.
Subscribe now

There is no room for freedom of speech offenders at the democratic table - or perhaps I ought to say, there shouldn't be.

Those who use their financial muscle or political power to muzzle others - be it the media, employees in the workplace or students at educational institutions - must be exposed.

When I first uncovered the exploitation of workers at a BP petrol station, including a litany of violations of labour laws and tax laws - "Injustice on petrol forecourt leaves me reeling" (June 5) - the last thing I expected was a schizophrenic response from the headquarters of the petroleum company and its franchise, which included a legal letter and a threat to charge me if I didn't stop "repeating untrue statements".

It isn't just that I'm being muzzled that irritates, but I'm irked by other developments that stemmed from this saga, which I cannot and will not ignore.

Almost a month ago, I received a message from the news desk that I had to urgently contact some Thabo who would not leave further details on the nature of the call or even his surname.

My initial instinct was to ignore him, but I changed my mind and contacted the chap.

He had a gripe with a supermarket chain that had unlawfully dismissed his daughter, he said. After a short discussion, I realised his was a long story which I couldn't deal with on the phone and I suggested we communicate via e-mail.

I later received an e-mail from this Thabo under another name, Gift Shabangu, in which he wanted me to contact him on his cellphone as he wasn't able to use his office landline, he claimed. This request I ignored.

Later that day, I received a letter from a legal firm for which Thabo - a.k.a. Gift Shabangu - works, instructing me to stop telling "lies" about BP Fairland which had been published in my June 5 column, as well as in "Petrol stations need to check more than just oil and water" (June 12); and "Petrol fumes smell of lies, lies, lies" (July 24).

The author of the legal letter promised to outline his client's charges the following week, which would have been in the first week of August. I have not as yet seen these charges.

Could it be sheer coincidence that Shabangu - who seemed more interested in my contact details than in sending me his story - happened to work for this law firm?

Was it a sheer fluke that the lawyers' letter happened to arrive hours after Shabangu had obtained my e-mail address?

On the same day, a letter was forwarded by my former colleague and the man to whom I was reporting, Fred Khumalo, in which BP's head office acknowledged the problems I had raised in the articles.

The company seemed to have taken a serious look at the issues I had raised, and outlined a number of steps it would be taking to remedy the situation.

BP said: "While Pinky's exposure has caused some serious damage to our brand and that of competitor service stations, it has also highlighted the extent of the problem and we realise that urgent action needs to be taken to ensure the rights of forecourt employees are met and upheld.

"We recognise it as an industry-wide problem and have as a matter of urgency set a motion in place to engage other industry role players such as the South African Petroleum Industry Association (Sapia) and the Fuel Retailers' Association (FRA) to address this."

The petroleum company spoke of a programme it would embark on to educate its workers on their rights - and referred specifically to the BP Fairland franchise.

The statement said the staff at this service station had been issued with new contracts with clear performance areas. The head office had also instructed the owners of this petrol station to address a contravention notice for failure to remit returns to the Motor Industry Bargaining Council.

This was all good news - had it not been for the fact that the lawyers' letter contradicted this statement.

In fact, so confusing is the situation, that two weeks ago I was invited to BP's headquarters - and had to remind the public relations person of the small matter of the charges pending.

Two days later, this response: "Good point. There are a couple of legal matters that still need to be resolved."

So, who's fooling who on this matter? One thing is for sure: I will not be gagged while waiting for charges to be formulated.

subscribe Just R20 for the first month. Support independent journalism by subscribing to our digital news package.
Subscribe now