ELRC 728-21/22GP

Panellist/s: Seretse Masete
Case No.: ELRC 728-21/22GP
Date of Award: 03/11/2022

In the ARBITRATION between:

LEBUANG MOTLOBA

(Union / Applicant)

and
GAUTENG DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

(Respondent)

Union/Applicant’s representative: Self representation
Union/Applicant’s address:
Telephone:
Cell:

Respondent’s representative: Pulane Tafane

Respondent’s address:
Telephone:
Cell:

Particulars of proceedings and representation

1. The matter was held virtually on 25 July and 19 October 2022.
2. The Applicant, Lebuang Motlobo (employee), represented himself and the respondent, Gauteng Department of Education (employer), was represented by Pulane Tafane.
3. The proceedings were conducted in English and recorded on the system.
4. After realising that the employee was not represented, I kept on advising him throughout the proceedings in terms of how to lead evidence. I further took about a minute or two explaining how should the closing arguments be drafted and he indicated that he understood.

Issues to be decided

5. I have to decide whether or not there was an unbearable employment relationship, caused by the conduct of the employer at the work environment which resulted in the employee tendering his resignation (constructive dismissal).
6. I further have to determine an appropriate remedy should I find that the conduct of the employer made the employment relationship between the two parties unbearable.

Background to the dispute

7. The employee was employed by the Department of Education as an educator on 27 July 2009 and was earning R320271.00 per month at the time of the dispute.
8. The employer was allegedly sabotaging him, failed to give him support and the management influenced everyone to turn against him.
9. He then realised that the employer did not want to support him and decided to resign and refer a dispute of constructive dismissal.
10. He challenged the employer’s conduct and sought to be compensated.
11. The employee testified as a sole witness and submitted one bundle of documents marked B.
12. The employer disputed the employee’s allegations and cited that the employee was actually failing to carry out his duties and decided to quit. The employer further submitted that there was no constructive dismissal and no compensation would be paid to him. The employer called witnesses to corroborate the employer’s version and one bundle of documents marked A submitted.

Survey of evidence and arguments
The Employees’ version
The employee, Lebuang Motlobo, testified under oath as follows;

13. He has been accused of being lazy and killing the black child and therefore suffered for 10 years under the Department of education’s employment. The accusations were baseless because he had qualifications up to Master’s degree and was handling some projects and extra mural activities. The School used to badmouth him and the management influenced learners, SGB and the School community against him. He was harassed, victimised, conspired against, threatened and everybody was mobilized against him. Ms Sithole badmouthed him to Gugulethu, a learner, who in turn disrespected him. Lesego told Sithole bad things about him, and people were told not to regard him and some children confessed to him. He was even suspended because of the misbehaving children. He was diagnosed with depression in 2016, as can be seen on pages 240 to 271 of bundle B. The social worker also mentioned anxiety and finances as some of the cause. He was further diagnosed with psychosocial problems as can be seen on pages 247 to 249 of bundle B. He was also diagnosed with acute stress as can be seen on pages 254 to 265 of bundle B. His last session was on 06 October 2021. On page 266 of bundle B, he was diagnosed with mental health disorder therefore unable to be employed and disability grant was recommended for him. His files and or books would disappear and resurface, he would then find muthi in his office. One day he found muti in his file and all this muti thing made him sick and he failed to meet timelines. He was suspended in October 2016 up to February 2017 and was given a monetary fine. Learners started bunking classes indicating that they just felt tired when looking at his class.
14. The school sent him a document through courier, see page 275 of bundle B, which was meant to hurt him because the Principal asked if he got it, but he did not open it. The Principal in 2019 did not tell the parents why children did not receive reports and parents revolted against him. He was allocated subjects, Creative Arts and Life Orientation, which he was not trained to teach but was given lesser English classes, see page 278 of bundle B. He was not given support which made him to beat the children. The only support he received was in marking. In 2017 he spoke to Nkele Molotsi who promised to come back to him but in vain, see page 99 of bundle B. He filled in the forms for incapacity but no response, see page 64 to 77 of bundle B. The Principal victimised him because she would call him after knocking off, when the common transport he was using was at the gate. She (Principal) would tell him that should he refuse to come when called, he would be charged with misconduct. He would be threatened and verbally abused when submitting documents after the dead line. He was reprimanded when failing to attend morning session but Mandawe would not be reprimanded. Molelekeng would go to an extend of calling and waiting for him from and at the toilet. All Educators were given a watch except him. The Principal would also refuse him from consulting a doctor when sick. He was suspended without salary and fined R10000-00 in August 2016, see page 38 and 39 of bundle B, for corporal punishment against the children. There were four separate cases against him which were dropped and it was recommended that he be given a support, see pages 92 to 200 of bundle B.
15. When giving zero marks to the kids for failing to do a task, his mark sheet would be returned. He would be told that he was from a university and should be able to deal with his problems. Molelekeng would impede his work as he would tell the children that no one should be forced to put on a tie. Molelekeng would stop children from attending extra class lessons but Mkhomi and Dlamini would be allowed to do so. On 02 August 2022, a lot of teachers had left by 2h30 but he was refused to leave. He was suspected of faking his illness and accused of stealing the learner’s books. One parent told him that the children were told not to cooperate with him. The Principal told the teachers not to help him. She (principal) only let them help him because she was instructed to make them help him. In 2019 and 2020 he would be given more learners and refused of the text books. One Ms Olivier told him that she could not assist him because the Principal warned her against that, see page 323 of bundle B. Rajuli openly told him that he was going to make sure that he (employee) exits the gate and he further encouraged the Principal to organise a petition against him. The deputy Principal would manhandle him, in front of Sithole Sekano and the learners. Molelekeng mishandled him in the class in front of Mandawe who tried to separate them. Management, Molelekeng and Rammela, would just get into his class without knocking. Molokwane would threaten the children sent by him to fetch water, but other educators were allowed to send children. He was unfairly blamed for theft and would be investigated by Molelekeng instead of helping him.
16. He wrote to the Principal, the SGB and the District but received no joy. He went for counselling, consulted doctors and social workers and was still attending counselling. He also communicated with legal professionals. At the District, he communicated with Nkele Modutsi, Paul Serobatse, Mokgadi from the wellness office and HR, but nothing came out until he opted to resign. The letters he wrote to the management were on page 15 to 20 of bundle B. The Principal, Molelekeng and Ramela would refuse to sign his documents. His resignation affected his health and his mother’s wellbeing. He was unable to fend for his family which depended on him.
17. On cross-questioning, he testified that he started working in 1999 and his contract ended but got a permanent employment at Thutolefa in 2001 where he resigned to follow business interests. He later got an employment at Magalies School in 2009 where the disputed occurred. It was put to him that he had a tendency of resigning when reprimanded and that witnesses would come and attest to that. He denied that and averred that there were photos which indicated that there were things put in his body through witchcraft from the School though he could not prove that because only the spirits could prove it and that ancestors could not lie to him. It was put to him that one witness will come and testify that he changed containers from one to another and that he had a sole control over the keys. He did not say anything. It was put to him that he had only one class of Creative Arts as shown on page 51 of bundle A, He answered that page 341 of bundle B showed 6 during the first term and Creative Arts was more than English. Page 2 of bundle A and page 130 of bundle B were his resignation letters dated 07 September 2020 and 04 September 2020 respectively. The Principal refused to sign the letter dated 04 September 2020 citing that she did not want to implicate herself. The first time he decided to resign in 2020, he was stopped as he was told that he had cases to answer. He was a union shop steward from 2010 to 2019. He lodged a grievance in 2011 and it was not attended to but he never took it further. He had two Principals respectively at Magalies, Mthimkhulu in 2009 and Ngobeni in 2012. It was put to him that on 15 September 2019 and 19 September 2019 he submitted only mark sheet, on 20 September 2019, no marks for drama and Arts, 03 October 2019, no mark sheet, see page 18 of bundle A and page 19 of the same bundle showing that he failed to comply and the Principal returned his mark sheet. He responded that the problem was that the Principal said he (employee) was refusing with reports. He failed to submit marks because the management influenced the children to revolt against him. He could not tell the Principal that he would not be able to submit marks because he knew they would not believe him. He denied that he lacked classroom management because that was caused by the negative influence by the management. It was put to him that a learner will come and testify that she never wrote any letter. He did not comment, but maintained that his main reason was that he was sick. He failed to inform the management about his illness because he was feeling passive with headaches.
18. His basic duties were to teach, mark, assess and submit but his marks were mostly not on time. He was referred to an EAP and he attended an accommodation meeting to a finish. He confirmed that Molelekeng assisted him to apply for medical aid as recommended by the EAP but he did not. He insisted that though the employer tried to assist him, it still made his employment conditions unbearable. It was put to him that he had a pattern of failure to submit and that page 19 of bundle A showed a series of his failures. He responded that it was not a pattern. He conceded that he would fall ill every time he was required to submit marks. It was put to him that the Chief Director tried to intervene and assist and further sent one person from his office to assist him. He responded that he did not see them. He referred to page 281 of bundle B where he confirmed that he had a problem of relapse and depression. He was further referred to page 283 of bundle B where he indicated that he had two camps of spirits in him, but he blamed the employer. He insisted he blamed the employer because the medical and traditional healers could not diagnose his problem. The curse was thrown to him by his brother and his aunt. He was poisoned several times and some poisoning was partly by his employer. He admitted to have been sluggish and below expectation. He further confirmed that he had to be disciplined but argued that the approach was not good. It was put to him that he had an opinion that he was hated and further that he voluntarily stopped to take his medication. He did not deny. He confirmed the District tried to assist him and that a meeting to assist him was arranged where he attended the first one on 19 September 2017. He also attended the 2nd meeting without having fully completed the tasks he was given to do. Regardless of these, he still blamed the employer for his spell. His Doctor (Dr Khonda) was impatient with him, and he blamed the employer for that because the employer requested documents from the Doctor. His problem of sleeping started in 2011 and he was always alone at the School because people turned against him. He was harassed and assaulted but did not report regardless of him being a unionist who knew his rights. The Circuit manager, Mr R Jones visited his School repeatedly for his matter. He went for a hearing for beating children and fined R10000-00, but after appeal he was given 3 months’ suspension. It was put to him that the parcel sent to him through a courier was a letter advising him to come back to School because he deserted his post (from 03/08/2020 to 14/03/2022) in terms of Section 14(1)(a) of the Employment of Educators Act. It was further put to him that on return from the abscondment, he submitted his resignation letter dated 07 September 2020. He did not deny. A reference was made to Page 40 and 41 of bundle A which corroborated that there was a parents meeting in which they wanted to forgive him. He answered that it was not consistent.

The employer’s evidence and arguments
1st witness, Ronald Muchineripe, testified under oath as follows;

19. He was a PL 1 Teacher at Magalies School from 2008 and knew the employee well. He denied the statement by the employee on page 10 of bundle B because he was not in the same department with him. He did not know anything about the witchcraft against the employee as the employee was always confined alone to his container office. He once shared an office with the employee and other employees for a short time. It was put to him that his denial was not honest because he (witness) used to say “you must finish your work”. He responded that he did not remember. He confirmed that he did not know the statement by the employee on page 10 of bundle B about being witched.

2nd witness, Kopo Moki Ngobeni (Ngobeni) testified under oath as follows.

20. She started as a principal on 24 October 2012 after leaving another School. She found the employee at Magalies School. The employee was teaching English but he had a problem of failing to submit because he was not marking his scripts. She went to an extend of requesting other teachers to assist him to mark. The employee was most of the time absent from work and not adhering to the time frames. He would most of the time claim ill health. He would produce pictures claiming that he was bewitched but never reported any use of muti against him to her. He was teaching Arts and Life Orientation at some stage. He was appointed in an English post and given English to teach. The employee used to complain about the number of classes but he was informed that almost all of the teachers had more classes. Page 18 of bundle A, was a report written by her. She resorted to record all the incidents by the employee because he would change the story and deny what actually happened. If an educator had challenges in meeting the time frames, they were expected to arrange with the relevant Head of Department, but with the employee, same would be done but he would still not submit. The employee would be absent especially on submission days and follow up would be made but with no avail. There was an annual general meeting, see page 19 of bundle A, and it was not true that she influenced the parents against him. On 04 November 2019 English marks were not submitted and the parents were asking about that failure to submit the marks. A task team was formed and convened a meeting with the employee where they asked him questions. The employee promised to submit. The employee used to refuse to sign the leave forms after staying home for more days and would also not submit marks. He would submit mark sheets with a lot of zero citing that learners refused to perform and do orals. The Creative Arts Head of Department assembled the learners and made them to perform and then give them marks. Molelekeng would also do the same to assist the employee and the employee was aware of the interventions.
21. The employee attempted to resign three times indicating that he wanted to pursue other ventures in life. He never indicated any intolerable conditions at work. On page 22 of bundle A was an invitation for a disciplinary hearing but the employee did not attend the sitting and no reason was advanced. It was not for the first time that he (employee) was called and refused to attend a disciplinary meeting. There was a letter on page 23 of bundle A which she signed. The letter on this page did not indicate any intolerable conditions at work and was submitted on 11 October 2020. She was not aware of any ill treatment against the employee. He was advised to get a medical aid to enable him to consult doctors but he did not do that. On page 47 of bundle A, was a courier letter about the employee’s long absenteeism. He was then given an authorised leave form to sign but he refused, see page 32 to 34 of bundle A. Page 281 paragraph 3 of bundle B, dated 23 October 2017 was a letter from the employee confirming that he has not been performing well indicating that he was insulted, criminalised, a lazy person, shouted at etc. The employee would be reminded in a meeting that teachers’ work was to teach and report to the parents and the district as well. The employee had an element of laziness because learners would write but he would not mark. Paragraph 5.1, the employee lamented about spirits and ancestors, but that never came to her attention. She was not aware that the employee was under depressant. On page 284 of bundle B, the employee’s letter was explaining his possession by evil spirits and witchcraft against him by his half-brother, but this was never brought to her attention. She witnessed the assistance given to the employee by the fellow teachers and Head of Department several times. She discovered from the records that the employee had the same conduct even during her predecessor. The District and the Director had several meetings with the employee trying to assist him. The curriculum adviser, Mr Booysen also tried to intervene in order to assist the employee. She denied the version of the employee on page 276 of bundle B that the employee complained of more classes in the subjects he did not specialise in, because he had more classes. The time table found on page 277 of bundle B, was not the way the schools timetable was drawn, so it was not from the School. She was not aware that the employee was declared unfit to work due to illness.
22. During cross questioning, the employee indicated that most of what the witness testified on was true. He however, put it to her that there were letters he submitted to her some of which she refused to acknowledge and he further referred her to page 82 of bundle B which was a response from the District office. It was put to her that Page 79 of B was a letter of his complaints dated July 2017 meaning that his problems started in 2017. She responded that she did not know about the letter because she was on leave and that he never made her aware of it. It was put to her that the letter on page 108 had reasons for him to resign but she refused to acknowledge its receipt. She denied to have rejected the letter and said there was no proof indicating that she rejected it.
23. He referred her to pages 117 to 124 of bundle B, an exit questionnaire, where the witness refused to sign because he (employee) cited dissatisfaction and working conditions. She denied having seen the exit questionnaire before. It was put to her that she refused the letter on page 130 of bundle B. She denied having seen the letter before and the employee himself did not sign it. It was put to her that one Nkele, phoned her informing her about the fact that she refused to sign his letter. He referred her to page 132 of bundle B where there was a request for him to submit the resignation letter. She responded that, the letter was in response to the one on page 131 of bundle B. It was put to her that she was not telling the truth. She maintained she was telling the truth and she did not believe in assumption but evidence. She maintained that the employee’s reason to resign, was that he wanted to pursue other avenues.

3rd witness, Andrew Thekiso Molelekeng (Molelekeng) testified under oath as follows

24. He started working at the School in 2010 and as a Deputy Principal in 2012 and found the employee at the School. It was not true that the employee had few English classes. The employee always failed to submit on time. He and other colleagues would have meetings with the employee normally towards submission, eg on 30 June 2017 where mark sheets were not submitted. On 26 July 2017 the employee left the school without permission. The non-submission of marks would impact negatively on the compilation of the reports and or mark sheets which translated into the delay of targets and submission to the District. The employee’s reasons would be that learners refused to do the tasks and he would go with him to make sure that the learners do their work. The thing was that the employee would always mention such reasons only when asked why he did not do his work. The issue of witchcraft was never brought to his attention. The employee was always alone, not interacting with any one unless it was the time for submissions. He did not agree that the work environment was intolerable to the employee more so that he was a union shop steward.
25. He denied to have assaulted and or shouted at the employee. It was put to him that he(witness) used to manhandle him in front of the colleagues and learners. He denied that and said he (employee) could have reported him to the police or the District office.

Analysis of the evidence and arguments

26. It was common cause that the employee resigned as an Educator at Magalies School. It was also common cause that it was not for the first time for the employee to terminate his contract of employment through resignation. The issue in dispute was whether the employee’s resignation was caused by the employer by making the continued employment intolerable for the employee. The employee therefore referred a dispute of constructive dismissal in terms of Section 186(1)(e) of the Act, which provides that; Dismissal means that an employee terminated employment with or without notice because the employer made continued employment intolerable for the employee.
27. The employee testified that he was harassed, victimised, conspired against, threatened and everybody was mobilized against him. He added that educators were saying bad things against him and that some learners confessed same to him. In constructive dismissal the onus lies with the employee to prove all the allegations, more so because the employer denied those allegations. The employee’s version was not corroborated any means, be it documents and or witnesses except the medical certificates on page 256 of bundle B. The documents he provided did not have any evidence indicating that he did bring his concerns to the management. He talked of some learners having confessed to him, but he did not call them to corroborate nor did he indicate that the learners were unable to come because of particular reasons. On the issue of muti, he testified that his books would get lost, something was put in his body, he would feel tired and as a result failed to meet the dead lines. He blamed the School for using muti against him and believed that the Principal wanted to kill him because she sent a parcel through courier to him which he believed was an explosion similar to the one that killed Joe Slovo’s wife. The employer denied that, citing that the letter which was sent to the employee was to remind him to come back to work as he absented himself without any authorisation. Surprisingly the employee turned and say the witchcraft came from his half-brother and his aunt. Despite the fact that it is difficult to prove witchcraft, even the Courts of law had difficulty in doing that, the version of the employee was not probable. When the employer put to him that the letter which he thought was meant to kill him, was only to remind him of his unauthorised absenteeism, he did not challenge the employer and or further probe deep through cross-questioning. Witchcraft evidence was not put on the fore for me to see how it happened.
28. The employee went on to testify that, he did not receive any support from the management and even from the circuit and or district office. This version was challenged by the employer’s witnesses, Ngobeni and Molelekeng who testified that the District team including Mr Jones and the curriculum adviser, Mr Booysen, used to have meetings with the employee trying to support and assist him as he was failing to submit mark sheets, failing to meet the dead lines and absenting himself especially on the days of submission. Molelekeng’s evidence was further not disputed when testified that he and other educators used to organise learners for practical marks in order to help the employee. The employee did not dispute this version by the employer and I therefore considered the version of the employer to be more probable than that one of the employee. The concern of physical assault of the employee by Molelekeng was not substantiated and Molelekeng disputed it saying it lacked substance because the employee did not even report the case of assault to the Police. Since there was no evidence to prove assault and that the onus lied with the employee to produce such, I concluded that the version of the employee was not probable.
29. The witness of the employer, Ngobeni, testified that it was the usual conduct of the employee not to meet the dead lines and absented himself on the days of submission because the employee was doing the same things even at Thutolefa School where he resigned citing that he wanted to follow other avenues. He (employee) advanced the same reasons when he resigned at Magalies. The employee did not dispute this except to say there were other letters which he submitted to the Principal(Ngobeni) where he indicated intolerable conditions at work but she refused to accept them. Ngobeni denied to have seen such letters and the employee could not produce any proof of receipt by Ngobeni to that effect. The issue of having been poisoned by the employer was also not substantiated. The employee, during cross questioning admitted to have been sluggish and below expectation. He further confirmed that he had to be disciplined but argued that the approach was not good. It was put to him that he had an opinion that he was hated and further that he voluntarily stopped to take his medication. He did not deny. He confirmed during cross-questioning that the District tried to assist him and that a meeting to assist him was arranged where he attended the first one on 19 September 2017. He also attended the 2nd meeting but did not complete the tasks he was given to do.
30. He (employee) produced medical certificates on pages 254 to 266 of bundle B, which supported that he had stress, tension and headache. My take is when an employee has depression, stress or related illness, and they are unable to properly perform their duties as a result, the employer is bound to consider such conditions and attend to them accordingly. Such conditions need not to be caused by the employer to make the employee resign. If an employee has depression stress etc, they just need to bring that to the attention of the employer. They (employee) therefore may apply for temporary medical unfit leave, accommodation or any other leave that will help in minimising the stress or the depression. In Mogomatsi vs Goredema N.O. and others (C560/2019 {2022} ZALCC 20 (2022)43 ILJ 2063 (LC), the court the court reinstated Mogomatsi on the bases that the commissioner ignored the evidence on stress by the employee. Mogomatsi was actually informing the management that he was sick and that he would not be able to report for work because of illness, come stress. This happened in March and in May, the management however told him in March that his illness was not different from the illness of the other employees, but they (other employees) managed to come to work. For the May incident, the management insisted that he report for work for some few hours regardless his illness. In that case, the employee made the employer aware of his stress problems and the evidence was submitted. The employer did not dispute that in Mogomatsi matter. The difference with the current case is that, the employee absented himself without authorisation and never brought his stress problem to the attention of the employer as the reason for his absenteeism except to submit the medical certificates during the arbitration proceedings. The management in trying to assist the employee, organised counselling and or EAP for him but he did not have interest. He (employee) in his own testimony confirmed that he abandoned the program. I did not get any evidence led by the employee indicating that he approached the Principal (Ngobeni) or the school management team, to present his problems of stress or depression. The employee also did not lead evidence showing that he submitted any application for temporary accommodation or medical unfit but denied by the employer. Ngobeni indicated during her testimony that the employee never talked to her about stress and or depression as a reason of him wanting to resign. To make matters worse, the employee did not deny that he was even refusing to sign leave forms. He (employee) wrote in his letter of resignation that he wanted to follow other avenues. This version by Ngobeni was not disputed. What the employee brought to the attention of the management was that he was sick and that was because of the spell by his half-brother and his aunt. He was further advised and assisted to apply for a medical aid, but he abandoned the application. My take is that the employee did not handle his problem of stress very well. It could not be probable that it was the employer which made continued employment relationship intolerable. Constructive dismissal should meet the following requirements (a) The employment circumstances must be so intolerable that the employee could truly not continue to stay. In casu, the employee had support from the management and the district officials and even the parents. It was testified that the parents went to an extent of convening a meeting for the purpose of assisting the employee and he did not deny that. (b) The unbearable circumstances must be the cause of the resignation. This did not look to be the case in the employee’s case. In his letter he indicated that he wanted to follow other avenues, and he further conceded that he was sluggish in his work even failing to meet dead-lines. He further conceded that most of the testimony by the Ngobeni was true (c) there should be no any other alternative but to resign. The employee had alternatives, he could have applied for temporary incapacity leave, accommodation leave, or if he felt aggrieved, fill in a grievance form. The issue of him been given more subjects, not given a watch etc, could have been treated through the process of grievance procedure and or unfair labour practice route. (d)the unbearable conditions, must have been caused by the employer. In casu, the employee testified that he was bewitched by his half-brother and his aunt and that there were two opposing spirits in his body. He further said, those spell and the spirits, made him sick and fail to meet the dead lines. He however blamed the employer which he believed also played a part. He (employee) could not produce any evidence to that effect except to say the employer conspired against him. The issue of conspiracy which he believed Ronald Muchineripe would attest on was denied by the same Ronald Muchineripe. (e) The employer must have been in control of the unbearable circumstances. This could not be proved by the employee as can be seen above in this paragraph.
31. The above paragraph 30, can be summarised into three main requirements in constructive dismissal, viz, (i) The employee must have terminated the contract of employment (ii) the reason for termination of the contract must be that continued employment has become intolerable for the employee. (iii) it must have been the employee’s employer who had made the continued employment intolerable. All these three requirements must be present for it to be said that a constructive dismissal has been established. If one of them is absent, constructive dismissal is not established, see O’Reilly vs CCMA and others case no. JR2395/19. The employee only complied with one requirement viz, resignation. The employee mentioned disciplinary processes against him as one of the reasons for his resignation, but he did not deny that it was because he administered corporal punishment against the learners. However, if disciplinary action is unfairly taken against the employee, that may cause the employment relationship intolerable. Should it in any way found that the employee was disciplined because they performed poorly, constructive dismissal cannot take effect. The employee was reprimanded frequently because of his sluggish work and failure to perform. Furthermore, resigning in order to avoid disciplinary enquiry and claim constructive dismissal cannot stand, see Solidarity obo Van Der Berg vs First office equipment (Pty) Ltd (2009, 4 BALR 406) read with Mvamelo vs AMG Engineering (2003, 11 BALR 1294). I am satisfied that the employee did not make up a good case of no constructive dismissal against the employere

Award

32. There was no constructive dismissal against the employee.
33. The employee’s case is hereby dismissed.
34. No order as to cost.

Seretse Masete Date 03/11/2022
ELRC Panellist