Given recent media coverage emphasising the racism aspect, I believe it's appropriate to provide additional details regarding my dismissal by Magda Wierzycka, the founder of Sygnia, in 2019.
I was headhunted by Magda to fill the position of head of trading. Before this, I was the head of programme and Delta 1 trading at Credit Suisse International. During my tenure, this division achieved dominant market share in the JSE listed futures market, with a $5m profit even in challenging years. I received my initial training at Bank of America Merrill Lynch, where I spent five years on their equity derivatives desk.
During my interview with Sygnia, Wierzycka elaborated on her business model, and I discussed my professional background. The interview lasted about an hour, with about five minutes dedicated to the index arbitrage (IA) trading strategy. I conveyed that we would require a minimum of R100m to execute the strategy effectively. Wierzycka agreed to commence with R30m as a proof of concept. By its definition, an arbitrage trading strategy is expected to always yield profit upon execution, which was evident during my time at Sygnia.
However, the existence of fixed costs, limited funding and the brief duration of our trading activity — only two months compared with the outlay of 10 months' fixed costs — resulted in a slight negative financial outcome upon the project's closure. Nonetheless, this marginal loss was anticipated. It's important to recognise that this initiative operated as a side project, with my primary commitment remaining as the head of trading.
Shortly after joining, I was requested to assume the role of stockbroker in control, in addition to my position as head of trading. Initially, I hesitated due to the potential conflict of interest this arrangement posed. The stockbroker in control is responsible for overseeing the traders, raising concerns about how the head of trading could effectively fulfil both roles. However, I eventually agreed to take on the additional responsibility, and Sygnia paid for the exam fees. This concern was alleviated by the fact that two junior traders possessed the necessary qualifications, allowing one of them to temporarily assume the position while I prepared for and completed the exams.
Wierzycka tasked me with expanding Sygnia's stockbroking business beyond its scope of trading solely for Sygnia Asset Management. To achieve this, I reached out to some of the largest asset managers in the country and proposed our services. However, they declined to engage with Sygnia, citing concerns of racism and anti-BEE sentiments attributed to Wierzycka. Upon relaying this feedback to Wierzycka, I was then asked to devise a plan to address the BEE issue. I responded by presenting her with multiple alternative strategies. Notably, one straightforward solution involved raising capital for the IA book through a BEE deal, thereby simultaneously addressing the capital needs while confronting the BEE problem directly.
One of the proposed options involved isolating the profit and loss derived from Sygnia Asset Management and distributing 45% of the incremental profit to myself and my colleague. In other words, Wierzycka would retain 100% of her earnings before our involvement, while we would receive 45% of the profits generated from new business. This arrangement follows a standard profit-sharing model and, frankly, has no connection to BEE. The fact that we were black individuals was simply an added bonus. So for Wierzycka to focus on this particular option and interpret it as an attempt by two greedy individuals aiming to exploit BEE for undue personal gain is shocking and speaks volumes about her overall attitude towards transformation.
After conducting her own consultations with prominent asset managers regarding a potential BEE deal, Wierzycka returned with a notably hardened anti-BEE stance. This shift sparked a series of email exchanges where her anti-BEE sentiment became increasingly evident. In response, I reiterated the societal and economic importance of BEE to her. However, this led to a dramatic confrontation.
Wierzycka abruptly flew from the Cape Town office to the Johannesburg office, accompanied by her bodyguard. She stormed into the trading room, summoning me and my colleague to the boardroom with her bodyguard trailing behind. Without preamble, she declared, “Lesedi! Racism does not exist. I want you to get it out of your head.” She proceeded to berate us for a solid 30 minutes before leaving abruptly. Despite our attempts to defuse the situation, she departed for Cape Town shortly after. Two months later, I was retrenched from my position.
In the Section 189 notice, Wierzycka cited the closure of IA as the reason for my retrenchment. I had two primary concerns with this. First, the closure of IA occurred without any consultation. Second, and most importantly, I held the position of head of trading, as outlined in my employment contract and the Section 189 notice. Additionally, even in official Sygnia marketing materials, I was consistently referred to as the head of trading. Therefore, I questioned why the closure of a business unit that I had introduced should render the broader position of head of trading redundant. It was on this basis that I decided to escalate the matter to the CCMA.
At the CCMA, Wierzycka made explicit statements contradicting the Section 189 notice, asserting that the closure of the IA business was not the genuine reason for my retrenchment. Instead, for the first time during arbitration, she disclosed that my alleged lack of qualifications for the stockbroker in control position was the actual reason. Further, she contested my status as the head of trading, claiming I merely held the title on paper, suggesting that the signed employment contract held little value. She further alleged that I misrepresented my qualifications, despite possessing a CV that accurately listed all my credentials, and despite her payment for my exams shortly after I commenced employment.
The fact that we were black individuals was simply an added bonus. So for Wierzycka to focus on this particular option and interpret it as an attempt by two greedy individuals aiming to exploit BEE for undue personal gain is shocking and speaks volumes about her overall attitude towards transformation.
Moreover, her accusation of misrepresentation was based on my failure to disclose qualifications I did not possess, which I find absurd. I hold a BSc in actuarial science, a BSc (Hons) in financial engineering and I have passed all the requisite JSE trader exams. I am a member of the Golden Key International Honour Society. This is well articulated in my CV. No other qualifications are listed.
The basis of my case is straightforward:
- The true reasons for my dismissal were only revealed during arbitration, marking the first time I became aware of them.
- Wierzycka clearly alleges fault in a no-fault dismissal.
- The consultations leading up to the dismissal were conducted on a fait accompli basis, lacking genuine dialogue or consideration of alternatives with respect to the IA business unit.
- During arbitration, it was asserted for the first time that I was not the head of trading, contrary to both the terms of my employment contract and the Section 189 notice.
- The Section 189 notice explicitly states that the position of head of trading is redundant, yet during arbitration, it emerged that the position was not redundant and interviews were being conducted for the role. This points to blatant deception.
- For the first time in arbitration, Wierzycka admitted that a salary cut could have prevented my retrenchment. I had clearly expressed my willingness to accept a salary reduction in my testimony. A reasonable commissioner would likely have ordered my reinstatement upon learning this information.
The evidence supporting the points mentioned above is present in Wierzycka's own testimony. However, CCMA commissioner Lindokuhle Dlamini and acting judge Sean Snyman chose to disregard this evidence without offering any explanation.
Ultimately, I have a constitutional right to a fair trial. Courts cannot simply disregard material evidence without providing adequate reasons. Further, Section 189(3) of the Labour Relations Act explicitly states, “The employer must issue a written notice inviting the other consulting party to consult with it and disclose in writing all relevant information...” commissioner Dlamini and acting judge Snyman based their findings on information not included in the Section 189 consultations. By relying on this information, it becomes “relevant information” as per the act. So it's evident that the Labour Relations Act was violated as relevant information was not disclosed in writing. Consequently, my constitutional right to fair labour practices was also violated.
Finally, it's crucial to note that Wierzycka labelled me a racist (by accusing me of sending racist emails) in written communication. This evidence was presented during the proceedings. Therefore, to suggest there is no connection between the discussions regarding BEE and my dismissal two months later is utterly absurd. Ultimately, my only wrongdoing was conveying client feedback. Wierzycka disagreed with this feedback. When I attempted to elucidate the perspectives of these asset managers regarding BEE, she terminated my employment.
*Lesedi Kelatwang is CEO of Kela Securities
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.