Menu
Ruling (Ombuds)

The Food Spot v Primedia (EWN)

, ,

Ruling: Acting Press Ombud

Complaint:  PCSA 000523

Publication name: EWN/Primedia website

Author: Jabulile Mbatha

Headline: Workers accuse high-end restaurants of exploitation

Publication Date: 29 January 2026

Date lodged: 23 February 2026

Link to story: https://www.ewn.co.za/2026/01/29/restaurant-workers-accuses-high-end-restaurants-of-exploitation

Particulars

  1. This finding is based on correspondence by Angelo Christophorou, on behalf of The Food Spot, and Kgothatso Mampa, Head of Primedia Legal.

 Article

  1. The introductory sentence to the article aptly summarises the content of the text. It reads: “Trade unions representing members in the restaurant industry have warned high-end establishments against allegedly exploiting their workers, saying their businesses will be disrupted until they play fair.”
  2. Mbatha reports that the Food and Allied Workers’ Union and other unions visited the Fahrenheit Grill in Edenvale (which is owned by The Food Spot).
  3. They reportedly accused the outfit of:
  • not paying workers the minimum prescribed wags;
  • not giving workers contracts;
  • using the services of undocumented foreign nationals; and
  • overworking employees.
  1. One of the restaurant’s employees is quoted as saying that, when she calls in sick, she is threatened with getting fired. “Sometimes, when you give the store manager a sick note, it depends on the manager whether they pay or not, and South African laws don’t allow that,” the worker reportedly said.

Complaint

  1. The Food Spot (TFS) complains about these two issues:
  • False and defamatory allegations; and
  • It was not made aware of those allegations prior to publication.
  1. Firstly, then, the allegations that TFS’s employees are:
  • not receiving a basic salary;
  • effectively donating their labour; and
  • paid as little as R2 000 per month, despite a minimum wage requirement of approximately R6 000 per month.
  1. Other allegations are that TFS is:
  • non-compliant with labour legislation, including the Basic Conditions of Employment Act 75 of 1997 and Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995;
  • employing undocumented foreign nationals and uses this as leverage to suppress wages and silence complaints;
  • overworking employees;
  • non-compliant with the law;
  • without moral fibre; and
  • participating in unlawful activities.
  1. Secondly, TFS complains that it was not made aware of those allegations prior to publication. It says its representative was “not prepared to be ambushed into an interview without being given proper context and a reasonable opportunity to prepare”.
  2. It concludes: “Accordingly, [we were] not made aware that the aforesaid allegations would be made against [us] and published, and [we were] not given an opportunity to deal with or respond to such allegations, prior to the publication thereof.”
  3. TFS says EWN is in breach of Sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9 and 1.10 of the Press Code.
  4. It asks for a removal of all online posts, a correction, an apology and/or a summary of this finding, together with a right of reply.
  5. It also requests this office to fine EWN.

EWN’s response to the complaint

‘False, defamatory’ allegations

  1. EWN says that the allegations in dispute were properly attributed to a representative of a trade union.
  2. Besides, the story did not state that the allegations were fact. “The news article reported the fact of the pickets at restaurants, including the restaurant owned by the Complainant, and reported the allegations as relayed to EWN by the members of the trade unions,” it submits.

Not made aware of allegations prior to publication

  1. Mampa explains that Mbatha requested a response to the trade unions’ allegations from the manager of the restaurant. The manager refused to comply, saying he lacked authority to speak on behalf of the owner.
  2. Later that afternoon, the TFS’s attorney phoned the journalist, saying that the owner did not have an opportunity to respond and that his client was not aware of what the allegations were all about. Mbatha informed the attorney that the owner was entitled to respond and that the response would be captured in an update to the online article.
  3. The attorney replied that TFS first wanted an assurance that the story would be retracted – which EWN refused to do.
  4. The journalist was then directed to put the concerns in writing. However, Mampa says: “At no stage did the Complainant, via its manager or owner, take the opportunity to reply to the allegations made by members of the trade unions…”
  5. EWN then updated the online article with the following Editor’s Note: “EWN approached Fahrenheit Seafood & Grill for comment on the matter. The manager declined to comment and referred EWN to the restaurant’s legal team. The legal team also declined to comment and demanded that the radio broadcast version of the story be withdrawn before they would provide a response. EWN apologises for the delay in updating the story.”
  6. Mampa concludes that TFS was “reckless” and “unhelpful” in not replying or registering its views on the matter. Instead, he adds, “the Complainant attempted to intimidate a journalist to retract the story in its entirety. Thus, interfering with the constitutionally protected rights to freedom of expression and the right of the public to receive information and ideas.”

The Food Spot replies

  1. TFS says the protests appeared to be targeted at Sepane and not at itself, even though it took place outside of its restaurant business. (TFS was a customer of Sepane – a co-employment specialist firm providing HR services.)
  2. Given this context, it seemed odd to its representative that he was being asked for an interview. Furthermore, the representative was given no information in respect of what the interview was going to be about “and he was not prepared to be ambushed into giving an interview.” Additionally, the representative needed authorisation to give an interview – which could not be obtained on the spot. “It is simply for these reasons that the request for the interview was declined.”
  3. TFS also says that the Editor’s Note added by EWN on 3 March 2026 is materially inaccurate.

Analysis

‘False, defamatory’ allegations

  1. I note that much of the allegations complained about under Point 7 and Point 8 do in fact not appear in the article.
  2. For example, there is no mention of:
  • not receiving a basic salary;
  • employees having been paid as little as R2 000 per month despite a minimum wage requirement of approximately R6 000 per month;
  • specific labour legislation (read: the Basic Conditions of Employment Act 75 of 1997 and Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995); and
  • using the matter of undocumented foreign nationals as leverage to suppress wages and silence complaints.
  1. For the rest, I agree with EWN’s reply that those allegations were not stated as fact, and that they were properly attributed. In doing so, the journalist has made certain that she stayed within the bounds of the Press Code.

Not made aware of allegations prior to publication

  1. TFS’s complaint about not having been made aware what the interview was going to be about and that he “was not prepared to be ambushed into giving an interview” is flawed. How could the journalist have provided him with allegations if the representative had already refused an interview?
  2. I do have sympathy with the representative though, in so far as that he did not have the authority to speak to the press. However, such authorisation was only a phone call away (if it was going to be forthcoming, that is).
  3. So then, the journalist did offer TFS an opportunity to respond – it cannot now, after publication, complain that it was not given such an opportunity.
  4. I commend EWN for publishing an Editor’s Note, albeit that it came relatively late.
  5. I cannot comment on TFS’s remark in its rejoinder that there were mistakes in the Editor’s Note, as it is not part of the complaint and EWN did not have an opportunity to respond to that allegation.

Finding

The complaint is dismissed.

Appeals procedure

The Complaints Procedure stipulates that within seven working days of receipt of this decision, either party may apply for leave to appeal to the Chairperson of the SA Press Appeals Panel, Judge Bernard Ngoepe, fully setting out the grounds of appeal. He can be contacted at khanyim@presscouncilsa.org.za

Johan Retief

Acting Press Ombud

15 April 2026

 

 

Related Posts