Case No PSES494-19/20WC
In the matter between
Ntokozo Mazwi Applicant
Department of Education: Western Cape Respondent
ARBITRATOR: Bella Goldman
HEARD: 10 March, 8 October, 9 October 2020, 26 November, 27 November 2020 and 9 February 2021
DELIVERED: 23 March 2021
Details of the hearing, representation and background
1. The arbitration was heard at the respondent’s offices in Cape Town on 10 March, 8 October, 9 October 2020, 26 November, 27 November 2020 and 9 February 2021. Mr Juwa Dimande, union official represented the applicant. Mr Lazole Mbotoloshe, labour relations officer represented the respondent. Handwritten notes were taken and the hearing was recorded.
2. The parties submitted bundles of documents in evidence which were agreed as being what they purported to be. The respondent played a voice recording during the course of the arbitration which was also agreed as being what it purported to be. It was agreed that closing argument would be submitted in writing.
3. The respondent called six witnesses. The applicant testified and called five witnesses
Issue to be decided
4. I have to decide whether or not the employee’s dismissal for misconduct was substantively fair in terms of the Labour Relations 66 of Act 1995 as amended (LRA).
Background to the issue
5. The applicant was employed as a foundation phase educator at Nomlingaselo Primary school from January 2017 until 6 June 2019 when he was dismissed for misconduct. At the time of his dismissal he was earning R30, 218.29, cost to company per month.
6. His extracurricular activities were to teach music and to coach soccer. As a result of an incident which took place in 2018 he was on 26 February 2019 issued with notice to attend a disciplinary hearing on 3 April 2019, he was charged with four charges of misconduct and found guilty of two, which are set out below.
Charge 3, Misconduct in terms of section 18 (1) (q) of the Employment of Educators Act 76 of 1998 as amended in that during the third and / or fourth school term 2018, by knowingly and / or instructing Nomlingaselo Primary school learners who were not on the school soccer team registration form, and over the age of 12 years to play in the Danone Nation Cup tournament term
Charge 4, Misconduct in terms of section 18 (1) (e e) of the Employment of Educators Act 76 of 1998 as amended, while on duty you conducted yourself in an improper, disgraceful or unacceptable manner by telling over aged soccer players for the Danone Nation Cup if asked by officials of the Danone Nation Cup for their names, they must give the names that appear on the false birth certificates.
7. The details of the incident are that overage learners played in the under 12 team at the Danone Tournament using the names and birth certificates of underage learners. The team of which overage players were part of won the National Tournament which qualified them to go to Spain. The overage learners did not go to Spain, a team with appropriately aged players went.
8. As a result of the incident Mr Nkukwana the team manager and the applicant were charged with same charges and dismissed. The applicant pleaded not guilty to both charges, he was found guilty and the sanction of dismissal was applied.
9. The principal was charged with two counts of misconduct; he was found guilty of one charge for which he was issued with a verbal warning. The charge of which he was found guilty of was:
Misconduct in terms of section 18 (1) (e e) of the Employment of Educators Act 76 of 1998 as amended, in that during the third and / or fourth school term of 2018, you committed an act of dishonesty by lying to Mr Naidoo, Circuit Manager and / or Ms Dideka Twala, Senior Labour Relations Officer that you don’t know how Mr Nukukwana became involved in school sport and / or you never appointed him as team manager of the school under 12 soccer team whereas you appointed him in August 2018
10. The applicant is challenging the dismissal on the basis that he did not instruct the overage leaners to play in the Danone Tournament and / or use the names and / or use the birth certificates of appropriately aged learners whose names were reflected on the school registration form. Further that the Principal was aware of the overage learners playing in the team and that the sanction was too harsh, he has not found alternative employment and is seeking reinstatement in terms of relief.
Point in limine
11. The applicant challenged the jurisdiction of the respondent on the basis that the tournament was organized by a private company, Danone. I ruled the Council had jurisdiction as the team members practiced in school time and the applicant coached them as part of his extracurricular duties and the learners and applicant were representing the school when they took part in the Danone Tournament.
Survey of the evidence and argument
12. I have considered all the evidence and argument, but because the LRA (section 138(7)) requires an award to be issued with brief reasons for the findings, I have only referred to the evidence and argument that I regard as necessary to substantiate my findings and the determination of the dispute. I will set out the salient points of the testimonies of the witnesses:
13. Mr Mhejile Robert Mzinda has been principal since 2004. On 8 August 2018 the applicant and Mr Mbamba (Mbamba) a contract educator came to his office to tell him that the under 12 soccer team was entering the Danone Cup Tournament. They gave him the team registration form which consisted of two pages, he signed both pages. On one page of the form, the list of players was recorded as well as their dates of birth. On the other page of the form the particulars of the school were recorded. He was also provided with copies of the birth certificates of the listed players. He ensured that the names on the list and those on the birth certificate correlated and signed the form off. The name of Mr Nkukwana (Nkukwana), an administrator at the school was reflected on both forms as being the team manager. Mzinda claimed not to have noticed that Nkukwana was reflected as team manager on both forms. The players listed on the form all qualified in term of age for the under 12 team.
14. The Principal said that Mr Nkukwana, an administrative official was previously involved in sports but it came to light that he had ‘cheating tendencies’, he had told older learners to play in a lower age group than that they were qualified to play in. The Principal did not at the time report this to Department but he removed Nkukwana from being involved in any sport activities. As far as he was concerned Mr Mampana who came to see him with the applicant was the team manager. He said that even though he did not take note that Nkukwana was reflected as team manager on both pages, he recognized the writing on the forms as being that of Nkukwana and given that Nkukwana was in clerical position he did not think that it was untoward.
15. In September 2018 it came to his attention that something was amiss. He saw a photo in the community paper of the under 12 soccer team winning the Provincial Danone Tournament and recognized that two of the learners on the photo as being overage.
16. He was concerned and called a sports committee meeting on 10 September 2018 which continued on 11 September 2018. The applicant and Mampana amongst others were present, the scribe was Ms Lali. The minutes reflect that the Principal told the committee that he had seen a photo of the winning team in a local newspaper and noted that two of the team members were over age leaners. He wanted to know why they were on the team, as by placing overage earners on the team it placed him in a difficult situation. The IMG was at the school on Friday and told him that there was a form he had to complete and he did not want to be involved in corruption. He said that he had on several occasions said that he did not want Nkukwana to be part of any sport as ‘he had corruption’ and he had removed him from school sport.
17. By winning the Provincial Tournament the team qualified to play in the National Tournament in Johannesburg. Should the team go to Johannesburg to play in the finals and be found to have placed over age learners in the team the school would be embarrassed. When the applicant was asked to explain the situation he said that they should ask Nkukwana that question. The principal adjourned the meeting to the following day in order that Nkukwana attend the meeting.
18. The following day the meeting continued with Nkukwana being present. The minutes reflect that the Principal told Nkukwana the reason for the meeting. When asked about the over age learners Nkukwana did not respond. The meeting went on to discuss the way forward the minutes reflect verbatim ‘We just need clarity – people suggested the team must go as it is, we will see after they have been in competition.
19. The Principal denied that the words reflected in paragraph 17 above were his words; he did not check the minutes and said that the scribe should be asked about meaning of the words reflected in the minutes. He claimed that he said that the listed learners should play in Johannesburg.
20. The Principal claimed that he had reported the incident to Ms Twala of the Department on about 10 or 11 September 2018. She asked him to submit a statement and said she would come back to him.
21. The Principal stated that the team which he believed was made up learners who qualified to be in the team were to go to Johannesburg. Before they left he took a photo with team, he did not notice which learners were on the team as he had their back to them. It was put to him in cross examination that given the history of the matter he should have got on the bus and checked that there were no over age learners. He said that he trusted the applicant to ensure that no over aged learners were on the team, it turned out that there in fact four over age learners.
22. The team won the National Tournament, when he saw the photo of the winning team he noticed that there were four over age learners. Having won the National Tournament the team was now eligible to play in the International Tournament which was being held in Spain.
23. After the team won the National Tournament the Principal called a meeting on 25 September 2018 to discuss the way forward. He told the meeting that he had received an email from the province requesting certain documentation and that he required clarity. It had come to his attention that learners were playing with identity documents of other learners, that is the team was made up of some overage learners. It was decided that the learners on the school list should play in Spain and it was agreed that the applicant, Mampana and Nkukana should go and speak to John Jacobs, the chairperson of the South African Schools Football Association’s (SAFSA)s disciplinary committee him and report to him what had taken place. He said that he later found out when he met with Jacobs that Nukukwana, Mampana and applicant never told Jacobs about the cheating which had taken place. The applicant said that he had trusted the applicant and this incident broke his trust and that it would be difficult to work with him again.
24. Phumla Nqwelo an Educator was a member of the sports committee. She said that she was at both the meetings of 10 and 11 September 2018. She was asked why her name was not reflected in the minutes of 10 September, she said that it could be because she arrived late. The purpose of meeting was to get clarity from Nkukwana the team manger with regard to over age learner playing in the Danone tournament. When she was asked for clarity on her understanding of the phrase ‘the team must, go as it is’ she said did that she understood it to mean that the original team must play in Johannesburg, that is the one with the correctly aged learners. She was asked why she thinks the minutes do not record what the applicant said at the meeting. She said that the Principal told the applicant did not want him to talk.
25. Vuiswa Lali, Head of Department was not on the sports committee but was asked to take minutes for the meeting of 10, 11 and 25 September 2018. At the meeting of 10 September 2018 Principal told the meeting that the under 12 team had won the Provincial Tournament. He had seen saw their photo in the local paper and noted that two of the team members were overage. The Principal went on to say that he did not want Nkukwana to be involved in sport as he had a history of cheating. He asked the applicant about the incident, the applicant said that the question should be asked of Nkukwana.
26. The meeting was adjourned to the next day so that Nkukwana could attend the meeting which he did. When asked about the overage learners neither the applicant nor Nukukwana replied. The meaning of the phrase she recorded in the minutes; ‘We just need clarity – people suggested the team must go as it is, we will see after they have been in competition’, is that overage learners should not play in Johannesburg, the team as registered must play. The Principal said that the team which was signed off must go.
27. Lali agreed that the phrase ‘must go as it is, is misleading, she said that she wrote up the minutes as she did, as it took less time to write up the minutes that way. Had she written up the minutes in Xhosa, the minutes would have taken her longer to write.
28. Lali was referred to minutes of 10 September which did not reflect Phumla Nqwelo as being present, she initially said that Nqwelo was not present and then changed her version to that Nqele arrived late. When asked why she did not add her name, Lali’s response was ‘Maybe I wanted to leave the meeting’.
29. Ntokozo Mazwi, the applicant was employed as an educator at Nomlingaselo Primary School in January 2017 as a contract educator. He was permanently employed from 1 January 2018. In 2018 he was appointed to the music and sports committees. He started coaching soccer in 2018, Nkukwanwe was the team manager. He took over coaching from Mr Qhamarhane who left the school; Nkukwana was the team manager in 2017.
30. The Principal and Nkukwana applied for the under 12 team to take part in in the Danone Tournament. Nkukwane asked him for photos of the overage players. He knew that over age players were using the birth certificates of younger players but he did not instruct them to play and use false birth certificates and names. He asked Nkukwana why older players were using the birth certificates and names of younger player, Nkukwane said to him, ‘Relax Chief this is how we do things here’. Nkukwana told the applicant that he could ask Qhamarhana, the previous coach to confirm this. Thereafter the applicant never asked further questions.
31. The team on which there were overage learners won the Provincial Tournament, this rendered them eligible for the National Tournament. The Principal was aware that overage players went to Johannesburg. He saw all the players and took photos with them.
32. The meeting of 10 September 2018 was called to discuss overage players. The Principal asked him about overage players. The applicant’s response was that Nkukwana should be asked that question. Nkukwana attended the meeting of 11 September 2018. The meeting confirmed that the same team, that with the overage players, would go to the National Tournament and that the issue of overage learners would be addressed on their return.
33. He said that the evidence of both Nqwelo and Lali was false. They lied to protect the Principal. Nqwelo was not at in the meeting of 10 September 2018.
34. He denied instructing overage players to lie but admitted knowing about the fact that they were overage, were using birth certificates of younger players and allowing them to play in the under 12 team. The Principal, Nkukwana and the sports committee were aware that the team was made up some overage players, not only in 2018 but previously.
35. He denied that he instructed any players to lie or that he gave them birth certificates of younger players. He admitted coaching the team with overage learners; he said that he knows that he should have reported the matter, but given that this was a longstanding and accepted practice he went along with it as he feared if he objected to the practice he would no longer be coaching soccer and this was first year of teaching. The community, the Principal and other educators all knew about the practice. Further the Principal never reprimanded him for using overage players. They won the National Tournament; when they returned they were welcome by everyone including the Principal.
36. Thereafter the Principal called a meeting on 25 September 2018 to discuss the way forward. Given that overage players had played in the National Tournament, the Principal realised that given the documentation required for Spain, the overage learners would not be allowed to go to Spain. It was agreed that the learners reflected in the school registration form would go to Spain, that is, appropriately aged learners. The applicant Nkukwana and Mampana were told to report the incident to Mr Jacobs, Chairperson of the SAFA which they did. Mr Jacobs said that the Principal is the person who must report the incident.
37. Manelsi Mampana was an educator at the school at the time in question. He was on the sports’ committee. On 9 February 2021 he testified for the applicant but it transpired that he gave evidence at the disciplinary hearing of the Principal in support of the Principal. For this reason his evidence cannot be relied upon and I am discounting it.
38. John Jacobs is and was the Vice Chairperson of the South African Schools Football Association’s (SAFSA) disciplinary committee. After the school won the National Tournament. Mampana, the applicant and Nkukwana came to see him, they told him about the falsification of the documents. He said that such matters are referred to and are dealt with by the Scrutiny Committee.
39. He knew the applicant as the coach, Nkukwana as the team manager and Mampana as a member of the sports committee. As per the registration forms, the principal is solely responsible for the veracity of information provided and it was the Principal who should have reported the incident, he cannot delegate the responsibility. The principal signed all the forms relating to the tournament. He referred to the two pages of the registration application. The applicant was reflected as being the coach and Nkukwana the team manager. He did not believe that the Principal did not notice the name of Nkukwana being reflected as team manager.
40. Jacobs denied informing the Principal that Mampana, the applicant and Nkukwana lied to him when they met with him as claimed by the Principal.
41. Jacobs was at the school when the team left to go and play in Johannesburg. He went into the bus as did the Principal who must have seen the overage learners and Nukukwana. A team went to Spain without any overage learners on the team.
42. Each party called three learners to testify in support of their respective case in terms of whether the applicant had a part in instructing the players to play as overage learners and or telling them to lie to the officials of the tournament with regard to their ages or names. The learners are minors and hence I am going to refer to them as learner A, B, C, D, E and F. Three learners, A, B and C testified for the respondent and three learners, D, E and F for the applicant. The purpose of calling them was related to charge 4 whether he instructed learners who played on the under 12 team and were overage to play in the Danone Nation Cup tournament team and / or told them to lie to the Danone officials.
43. Learner D, E and F C claimed that it was Nkukwane who told them to lie if they were asked for their ages or names and learners D, E and F said it was the applicant. All stated that the Nkukwana was the manager and that the applicant was the coach. Whether it was Nkukwane or the applicant who told the overage learners to use other learners’ names and birth certificates and / or lie to tournament officials, I find to be irrelevant I am satisfied that both the applicant and Nkukwane knew that over age players were asked to play using wrong names and did so. Not much hinges on who actually instructed the players to use other learners’ names and birth certificates. The applicant was well aware of what was happening and even if he did not actually instruct the learners he was an accessory to what was happening, he condoned it and took part in cheating. For this reason I find the applicant guilty as per charges 4. I find the applicant guilty of charge 3 on his own version
Respondent’s further submissions
44. Mr Mbotoloshi, the respondent’s representative as part of his closing argument referred to alleged irregularities committed by the commissioner and went on to list them. On 27 the respondent’s representative, Mr Mobotoloshe, reprimanded me for not conducting the arbitration in what he believed was a proper manner. I found the behaviour of Mr Mobotoloshe to be disrespectful and unbecoming. A representative is well within his / her to request the recusal of an arbitrator but it is not within his / her rights to reprimand a commissioner, such behaviour amounts to contempt. Mr Mobotoloshe was given the option on more than one occasion to apply for my recusal and each time he declined to do so. He claimed that he was telling me what he did, so that I would refrain from conducting myself in the manner.
45. Mr Mobotoloshe also in closing argument argued that I was biased. In support of this submission he cited the case of Sasol Infrachem v Sefafe and others (2015) 36 ILJ c55 at paragraph 54 ‘to summarise, in cases where it was held the Presiding Officer ought to have recused himself or herself at the outset, but failed to do so the entire proceedings before the Arbitrator or Presiding Officer are a nullity….’.
46. In this case there was no application made for recusal. I need to again emphasis that Mr Mbotoloshi was asked on more than one occasion if he would like to apply for my recusal and each time he declined to do so.
47. The above is not pertinent to the facts of this case and should not have been referred to in closing argument. The comments referred to above are argument to be submitted in instances of review. I can but imagine why such comments were included in closing argument by Mr Mbotoloshe.
Analysis of evidence and argument
48. In a case where unfair dismissal is alleged it is for the respondent to prove on a balance of probabilities that the dismissal was fair. If an applicant is dismissed for misconduct, Schedule 8 of the LRA requires the dismissal to be substantively and procedurally fair.
49. There was no challenge to procedural fairness in this case. In order for the dismissal to be substantively fair the employer must prove that: there was a rule, the rule was reasonable; the rule was known or should have been known by the employee, the rule was broken by the employee, dismissal was the appropriate sanction for the breach of the rule and the rule was consistently applied.
50. In this case there was no dispute about there being a rule and it being known and broken. For reasons stated in paragraph 43 I find the applicant guilty on both charges and find that each of the charges on its own could merit the sanction of dismissal as this is conduct which instills and allows a culture of cheating / dishonesty which is definitly not in the interests of the learners and the school.
51. The issue I must now determine is that of the appropriateness of sanction. In this case, despite the above, I did not find on the evidence before me that the conduct of the applicant merited the sanction dismissal for the reasons referred to below.
52. The applicant’s case is based on the submission that the Principal at all times was aware of the fact that overage learners played in the under 12 soccer teams not only this year but in previous years. This submission is supported by the evidence before me. The Principal was at the same time charged with misconduct, he found guilty of one offence for which he was issued with a verbal warning.
53. Misconduct in terms of section 18 (1) (e e) of the Employment of Educators Act 76 of 1998 as amended, in that during the third and / or fourth school term of 2018, you committed an act of dishonesty by lying to Mr Naidoo, Circuit Manager and / or Ms Dideka Twala, Senior Labour Relations Officer that you don’t know how Mr Nukukwana became involved in school sport and / or you never appointed him as team manager of the school under 12 soccer team whereas you appointed him in August 2018
54. I found the Principal not to be credible witness for reasons which will become apparent. He on 8 August 2018 signed the Team Registration form for entry into the Danone tournament. The registration forms required the name of the coach and that of the team manager. Nkukwana’s name was reflected as team manager not once, but twice. The Principal said that he recognized the handwriting of Nkukwana but did not think anything of it as Nkukwana was the school secretary. This explanation is improbable, given that he, as per his evidence was aware that Nkukwana had cheating tendencies and he had said that he did not want Nkukwana involved in sports. Surely having recognized the handwriting of Nkukwana he should have in the circumstances given extra attention as to who was reflected as team manager.
55. The Principal claimed to have reported the issue of overage learners to the Department on or about 11 September 2018. However the findings of the disciplinary hearing of the Principal reflect that he reported the incident to the department on 24 October 2018. The Principal was found guilty of ‘not knowing that Nkukwana was the team manager, not appointing him as team manager whereas you appointed him in August 2018’
56. Having been found guilty of the offence, his evidence at this arbitration was that he did not know that Nukukwana was team manager and was not aware that he was ever appointed team manager for 2018.
57. The Principal was aware that cheating had taken place in the previous year, but despite this amounting to serious misconduct; he did not report it to the department at that time.
58. It is clear that the only reason the Principal reported the incident in October 2018 was that by then the team had qualified to represent the school in Spain and he realized that should they go as is, there would be problem with documentation.
59. The Principal called meetings on 10 and 11 September to address the issue of overage learners. He claimed to consider cheating to be a serious thing, yet there is no evidence of him reprimanding the applicant or Nkukwana. He said did not know Nukukwana was the team manager, yet the evidence of Phumla Nqwelo, a member of the sport’s committee was that all were aware that Nkukwana was the team manager. There was much debate about the meaning of certain parts of minutes, namely:
60. We just need clarity – people suggested the team must go as it is, we will see after they have been in competition’,
61. The literal meaning is that the team with overage learners must play. The Principal denied that he said those words or meant that overage learners should play in Johannesburg. He stated that Ms Lali, the scribe should explain why she minuted the above. He claimed that he did not read the minutes
62. Lali agreed that the phrase ‘must go as it is’, is misleading, she said that she wrote up the minutes as she did, as it took less time to write up the minutes that way. Had she written up the minutes in Xhosa, the minutes would have taken longer to write. I did not find Lali to be a credible witness.
63. It is reflected in the minutes that the Principal went on to say. ‘As far as I know the boys doesn’t have boots, shin guards, socks. Coach said that he has already told learners to borrow them; I would like the boys to come today and see if they have all the kit we need. They will wear school tracksuits.
64. The only team members the ‘Coach’ could have told were those in the team which included overage learners.
65. With regard as to whether Phumla Nqwelo was present at the meeting of 10 September 2018, Lali changed her version more than once as to why she did not reflect Nqwelo’s name as being present in the minutes of 10 September 2018. She initially said that Nqwelo was not present and then changed her version to that Nqwelo arrived late to ‘Maybe I wanted to leave the meeting’,
66. When the team was leaving for Johannesburg it was not disputed that a photograph was taken of the team with the Principal. I find the Principal’s version that he did not see who the team members were, as he had his back to them to be highly improbable. He denied going onto the bus to send the learners off whilst John Jacobs of SAFSA confirmed seeing him on the bus.
67. John Jacobs said that the person who should have reported the cheating was the Principal and not Mampana, the applicant and Nkukwana, who did report it. It should be noted that the Principal claimed that Jacobs told him that the cheating had not been reported to him whilst Jacobs testified that it had.
68. Based on the totality of the evidence before me I am satisfied that the Principal was party to the cheating in that he was aware of it, was part of it and condoned it, yet he took no responsibility for what had taken place.
69. This was the applicant’s first position as an educator. The placing of overage learners in soccer teams was clearly a well-entrenched practice at this school. The community, learners, the Principal and educators were all aware of it and condoned it.
70. Clearly the right thing for the applicant to have done was to report what was taking place. He could not have reported to the Principal who was party to the cheating. He would have had to report the cheating directly to the Department. Given that the educator was newly appointed and he found himself in a school which had a culture of cheating condoned by the Principal it can be appreciated that it would have been difficult for the applicant to report the incident to the Department as he may well have had to face the displeasure of the Principal, leaners and the community.
71. I found the applicant to be genuinely remorseful and I believe that it is improbable that he will ever conduct himself in the same or similar manner. One of the factors to be considered when deciding whether to reinstate an employee is whether an employee is remorse, De Beers Consolidated Mines Limited v CCMA & others (2000) 21 ILJ 1051 (LAC)
72. When considering whether I can interfere with the employer’s sanction I must consider the case of Sidumo and others v Rustenburg Platinum Mines and others (CCT 85/06) where the Constitutional Court held that fairness requires a balancing act of the interests of the employer and the employee parties and that the commissioner, when considering whether the sanction was appropriate must consider the totality of the circumstances surrounding the dismissal. In this case I find the misconduct was of a serious nature but there were reasons for his conduct which are referred to above, the applicant was genuinely remorseful and it is improbable that the applicant will ever conduct himself in the same or similar manner.
73. For the reasons stated I find that the sanction of dismissal was not appropriate and I find that the dismissal of the applicant was substantively unfair. The applicant requested reinstatement in terms of relief and I see no reason not to grant this remedy.
74. I am in no way condoning the applicant’s behavior, what the applicant did was clearly wrong and amounted to misconduct of a serious nature. I believe that there should be some sanction for his actions. I am going to order that he be reinstated with final written warning which will run from the date of his reinstatement. The applicant was dismissed nearly two years ago; given the seriousness of the offence his back pay should be limited to a period of six months, this amounts to R181, 309.74 (R30, 218.29 x 6 months)
75. I find that the dismissal of the applicant was substantively unfair.
76. The respondent, The Western Cape Education Department must reinstate the applicant, Ntokozo Mazwi into the same position he held at the date of dismissal with no loss of benefits including leave and pension benefits as from 5 April 2021.
77. The applicant must be issued with a final written warning which is to run from the date of his reinstatement.
78. The applicant, Ntokozo Mazwi must be paid by the respondent, the Department of Education Western Cape the amount he would have earned over a period of 6 months at the rate payable at the date of his dismissal which amounts to the sum of R181, 309.74.
79. This amount must be paid no later than 30 April 2021
80. The applicant is to report for work on 12 April 2021
ELRC Panellist: Bella Goldman