ELRC644-20/21 EC
Text
ELRC 746 -20/21 LP
Text
Award Date:
13 October 2021
Commissioner: Jeffrey Nkuna
Case No.: ELRC 746 -20/21 LP
Date of the Award: 13 October 2021
In the matter between:
ARONE VONANI MUKHARI
(Applicants)
And
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION: LIMPOPO PROVINCE
(Respondent)
DETAILS OF THE HEARING AND REPRESENTATION
1. This award is rendered in terms of section 138(7) of the Labour Relations Act, 66 of 1995 as amended (the LRA).
2. The dispute was referred in terms of section 191(1) (a) & 191(1) (b) (ii) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 as amended (“LRA”). The hearing was part heard on the 13 August 2021 Virtual and was adjourned to 21 September 2021 and was held face to face at the Respondent’s Hlanganani Central District Office, Bhungeni, Limpopo Province
3. The Applicant, Mr Arone Vonani Mkhari (Employee), was represented by Mr Richard Sithi a legal practioner. The Respondent, Limpopo Department of Education was represented by Mr Makgoba Matlou, its labour relations officer
4. The proceedings were manually and digitally recorded and were finalized on the 21 September 2021. The Both parties made their closing arguments not later than the 27 September 2021 and same has been considered in this award
NATURE OF THE DISPUTE
5. The dispute is about an alleged unfair labour practice.
BACKGROUND TO THE DISPUTE
6. .The Applicant has been employed as an educator from 1986 to date. The Applicant faced a main charge of contravening Section 18(1) (t) of the Employment of Educators Act, 76 of 1998(as amended). Initially the Applicant faced one main charge divided into four counts and was found guilty of only three counts. This arbitration dealt with the same main charge divided in 3 counts which read as follows: “Charge1: Count 1 was that the Applicant told the HOD, Mrs Maluleke T N that the learners must be helped at home by their parents. Count 2 was that the Applicant said that he was not going to abide by the Management Plan because it did not help him with anything. Count 3 was that the Applicant refused to accept the Curriculum Package from the School Administrators. The Applicant was found guilty in the disciplinary hearing of all the counts and was issued with a two months suspension without pay and a final written warning. The Applicant is now challenging the substantive fairness of the findings and the sanction. The relief sought by the Applicant is the setting aside of the sanction imposed by the Respondent.
ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
7. I am required to determine whether the Respondent’s act amounted to an unfair labour practice act, or not. If so, to order the appropriate relief.
SURVEY OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT
Employee’s case
8. The Employee, Mr Vonani Arone Mukhari (the Employee), testified that he has been employed as an educator for the past 35 years. As regards the incident in question he testified that these charges have no substance and were fabricated merely to victimize him. He further testified that the problems originated during the year 2018 when he applied for the position of the HOD of Social Sciences and Languages and was not shortlisted. Ms MT Maluleke was appointed to that position and she is also the Respondent’s witness in this matter. He testified that he was aggrieved by the decision of not being shortlisted for the position and decided to lodge a grievance through the Union. Meeting was held with the Circuit Manger with the all relevant parties and the Principal of the School, Ms Mdaka. It was then decided in the meeting that they must bury the hatchet and the Applicant should not proceed with the complaint or the grievance. However, immediately after this meeting when he tried to approach Ms Mdaka, she slammed the door behind him. This happened for three days in succession. He then requested Ms T M Maluleke to approach the Principal and broker a peace between them. By then, Ms T M Maluleke was not yet the HOD and was very close to the principal. He further testified that the charges were merely a witch hunt and were proffered against him because of the complaint he lodged about the post which he was not shortlisted. He further testified that as regards the issue of charges he was facing, there was no substance as he was just complying with the directive of the Provincial Head of the Department of Education, all the schools in the province were expected to follow the time table issued by the Provincial Head of the Department of Education. The time table for the examinations was already in place and was adopted by the School. The time provide for the half yearly examination which were to take place from 29 May 2018 to 14 June 2018. The Applicant was teaching English P3 Grade 7 on 12 June 2018 and S.S (History) on 13 June 2018. These were the examination dates provided by the HOD of the province. These examination were scheduled to take place from 9:00. Each paper takes at least 45 minutes or 1 hour. The Principal then decided to change the Management Plan and arranged that consultation with parents from Grade 4 to 7 should be held on the 12 June 2018 and from 5 to 6 should be held on the 13 June 2018. He further testified that both these consultation were clashing with the provincial examination time table. In his own words, that was an unlawful instruction for him to be expected to consult with the parents of the learners during those days. He further testified he did state that the learners must be assisted by parents at home. As regards count 2, the Applicant admitted that he was not going to comply with the Management Plan because it was in contradiction to the Provincial examination timetable. He then refused to go and engage with the parents, As regards the count 3, he further testified that he refused to accept the Curriculum package from the School administrator. He further testified that he did not comply with those instructions because, according to him, they were not lawful instruction. He further testified that in all his years as an educator, he has never been disrespectful and this was supported by the testimonials from his superiors which confirmed that he was reliable and dedicated educator. He further testified that he was now reporting at the Circuit and doing nothing.
Employer’s case
9. The Employer’s first witness, Ms Tinyiko Nancy Maluleke, testified that she has been employed as the HOD for Social Sciences and Languages from Jan 2018. She further testified that she knew the Applicant well and he reported to her as the HOD. She further testified that her relationship with the Applicant was purely professional. They were not in friendly terms, she will greet the applicant and will keep quite. But because she was professional, she will insist greeting him until he responded. She further testified that his negativity towards her was due to the post she was appointed in and the Applicant contested her appointment. She further denied that he approached her to try and normalize his relationship with the Principal. She further testified that animosity was as result of her appointment, so there was no possibility that he can approach her to broker peace between him and the principal. She further testified that the Management Plan is developed after the consultation with all the educators and was authorized by the principal. Once it is authorized it is adopted as an official document. The Management Plan was adopted before the Provincial Examination was issued. The Principal then amended the Plan as it had some clashes with the provincial examination time table. The changes were communicated to staff members. She further testified that the consultation with the parents was changed but that was not going to interfere with the provincial time table. The examination table remained the same to start as scheduled at nine. The papers to be written were either I hour or 45 minutes long. The parent’s consultation took place at 12:00.The Applicant refused to accept the Curriculum Package which was used for consultation with parents. All other educators, except the Applicant accepted the packages and consulted with the parents. She approached the Applicant to verify why he refused to consult with the parents. The Applicant vehemently stated that it’s no use to consult with parents from grade 4 to 7. The Applicant further stated that these things are done in former Model c schools The Applicant responded by saying that learners should be helped by parents at home. In fact, the Applicant was defiant and even refused and further stated that he will not follow the Management Plan as it will not help him with anything
10. The Employer’s second witness, Mr Walter Kubayi, testified that he has been employed as the school clerk from February 2013. He further testified that he knew the Applicant very well and he reported to the principal, Ms Mdaka and the HOD of Social Sciences, Ms T Maluleka. He further testified that he was given instructions by Ms Mdaka to give the Applicant the curriculum package. The Applicant refused to accept and stated in Xitsonga that he will not do those things.
ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS
11. The dispute was referred for arbitration in terms of section 186(2) (a) of the LRA. I am required to determine whether the Respondent’s conduct constituted an unfair labour practices. Section 186 (2) provides “Unfair labour practice" means the unfair suspension of an employee or any other unfair disciplinary action short of dismissal in respect of an employee;
12. I am required to issue an award with brief reasons. I do not wish to offer an exhaustive survey of all the evidence and arguments presented at the arbitration hearing. I have had regard to everything presented to me, and what follows is a brief summary of the evidence relevant to my findings only
13. The Employee faced the main charge of contravening Section 18(1) (t) of the Employment of Educators Act, 76 of 1998(as amended). Section 18(1) (t) provides that an employee commits a misconduct if he/she displays disrespect towards others in the work-place or demonstrates abusive or insolent behavior. The charges were formulated as follows:: “Charge1: Count 1 was that he told the HOD, Mrs Maluleke T N that the learners must be helped at home by their parents: Count 2 was that he said that he was not going to abide by the Management Plan because it did not help him with anything: Count 3 was that he refused to accept the Curriculum Package from the School Administrator.”
14. It is common cause that that there were instructions given to the Applicant by Head of Department for Social Sciences and languages, Ms Maluleka to consult with the leaners parents on the 12 June 2018. It is also common cause that every school is required to have the Management Plan. This plan is discuss in the senior management meetings of the school and then adopted for that school. It is also common cause that the consultation with the parents of the leaners is in line with the Management Plan. It is also common cause that all the schools in the province have a single half year examination time table. The examination time table is issued by the Province Head of the Department of Education
15. The basis of the Applicant’s defence is that he was justified in refusing to comply with an instruction to conduct a parental meeting on 12 June 2018 on the grounds that, the instructions were unreasonable and/or unlawful in that it undermined the exam time table of the circuit/district/province which is the higher authority. The Applicant further argued that he did not want to associate himself with the principal’s decision to defy the authority of the province/district/circuit. The Applicant argued that the principal has no authority to change the Management Plan to be in conflict with the provincial examination time table.
16. The issue to be decided is whether the Principal changed the examination time table. The Applicant’s version was contradicted by the version of the Respondent’s two witnesses who testified that the examination commenced at 09:00 as scheduled on the 12 June 2018. Both witnesses indicated that, parent’s involvement only started after examination and parents only started arriving at school around 11:30. The Applicant‘s version is that the examination started at 09:00 appears to be not the most probable version.
17. The onus is on the Employee to prove that the Employer’s act or omission amounted to unfair labour practice. The Applicant was aware that the basis of his action is to prove that indeed the Respondent changed the time. The changing of time table will include the changing the scheduled time. There was no evidence presented before me to prove that the examination started at 12:00. My finding is that the Respondent did not make any changes to the time but only amended that Management Plan in regards to parental consultation particularly for the 12 June 2018. It is also my finding that consultation with parents only took place after the examination.
18. The next question is whether the Applicant was entitled not to comply with the amended Management Plan. The Management is an official document which outlined the yearly plans of the school activities. The Applicant has made an admission that he complied with the Management Plan, except where he alleged it to be in contravention with the examination time table. My finding is that the Management Plan is official document. It is also my finding that this Management Plan does not emanate from the Circuit Office or the Office of the Provincial Head of Department. This is the document which is adopted by the individual schools. Therefore, by his own admission, the Applicant failed to comply with the Management Plan
19. Evidence was led that consultation with the parents is part of the curriculum. This process is crucial in assisting with the improvement in performance by the learners. Evidence was led that Applicant refused to accept the curriculum package. In fact, the Applicant, admitted that he refused to accept the package. Further evidence was led that the Applicant stated clearly that leaners should be assisted by their parents at home. He further stated that, parents consultation for grade 4 to 7 is something which was done in former model C school
20. The Applicant argued that the Principal committed occupational detriment in that she punished him for lodging the grievance with the circuit office by not speaking to him and making his employment intolerable. The Applicant was subjected to a disciplinary hearing at the behest of the School Governing Body. This inference is not probable. The real issue was that the Applicant was aggrieved in that he was not shortlisted for the position of the Head of Department at a school for Social Sciences and languages. A meeting was held to deal with the tension between the Applicant and it was agreed they must bury the hatchet. If the Applicant felt strong that his employment was intolerable, there was nothing which prevented him to refer the unfair labour dispute to the Council. The Applicant waited until there was disciplinary hearing instituted against him.
21. It also not correct that there charges were on the behest of the School Governing Body. The charges were on the behest of the Head of Department for the Department of Education. I also wish to point out that, if the instructions by the Principal and the School HOD were requiring the applicant to act were contrary the Province HOD instructions, why did the Department pursue disciplinary proceedings against him.
22. My analysis is that the Respondent’s version is the most probable version that the Applicant failed to comply with the law instructions. My analysis is the conduct of the Applicant borers around disrespect towards others in the work-place or demonstrates abusive or insolent behavior. My findings are that the Applicant has on a balance of probabilities failed to prove that Respondent has committed an act of unfair labour practice by issuing him with two month suspension without pay and a final written warning.
23. My findings is that the Applicant was correctly found to have contravened Section 18(1) (t) of the Employment of Educators Act, 76 of 1998(as amended). It is also my finding that the sanction imposed was appropriate under the circumstances.
AWARD
24. The Respondent, Limpopo Department of Education, Limpopo Province, did not commit an act of unfair labour practice against the Applicant, Mr Arone Vonani Mukhari by finding him to have contravened Section 18(1) (t) of the Employment of Educators Act, 76 of 1998(as amended), and by imposing the 2 months suspension without pay and a final written warning.
25. The application is dismissed; and
26. No order as to costs
PANELIST: JEFFREY NKUNA
Case No.: ELRC 746 -20/21 LP
Date of the Award: 13 October 2021
In the matter between:
ARONE VONANI MUKHARI
(Applicants)
And
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION: LIMPOPO PROVINCE
(Respondent)
DETAILS OF THE HEARING AND REPRESENTATION
1. This award is rendered in terms of section 138(7) of the Labour Relations Act, 66 of 1995 as amended (the LRA).
2. The dispute was referred in terms of section 191(1) (a) & 191(1) (b) (ii) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 as amended (“LRA”). The hearing was part heard on the 13 August 2021 Virtual and was adjourned to 21 September 2021 and was held face to face at the Respondent’s Hlanganani Central District Office, Bhungeni, Limpopo Province
3. The Applicant, Mr Arone Vonani Mkhari (Employee), was represented by Mr Richard Sithi a legal practioner. The Respondent, Limpopo Department of Education was represented by Mr Makgoba Matlou, its labour relations officer
4. The proceedings were manually and digitally recorded and were finalized on the 21 September 2021. The Both parties made their closing arguments not later than the 27 September 2021 and same has been considered in this award
NATURE OF THE DISPUTE
5. The dispute is about an alleged unfair labour practice.
BACKGROUND TO THE DISPUTE
6. .The Applicant has been employed as an educator from 1986 to date. The Applicant faced a main charge of contravening Section 18(1) (t) of the Employment of Educators Act, 76 of 1998(as amended). Initially the Applicant faced one main charge divided into four counts and was found guilty of only three counts. This arbitration dealt with the same main charge divided in 3 counts which read as follows: “Charge1: Count 1 was that the Applicant told the HOD, Mrs Maluleke T N that the learners must be helped at home by their parents. Count 2 was that the Applicant said that he was not going to abide by the Management Plan because it did not help him with anything. Count 3 was that the Applicant refused to accept the Curriculum Package from the School Administrators. The Applicant was found guilty in the disciplinary hearing of all the counts and was issued with a two months suspension without pay and a final written warning. The Applicant is now challenging the substantive fairness of the findings and the sanction. The relief sought by the Applicant is the setting aside of the sanction imposed by the Respondent.
ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
7. I am required to determine whether the Respondent’s act amounted to an unfair labour practice act, or not. If so, to order the appropriate relief.
SURVEY OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT
Employee’s case
8. The Employee, Mr Vonani Arone Mukhari (the Employee), testified that he has been employed as an educator for the past 35 years. As regards the incident in question he testified that these charges have no substance and were fabricated merely to victimize him. He further testified that the problems originated during the year 2018 when he applied for the position of the HOD of Social Sciences and Languages and was not shortlisted. Ms MT Maluleke was appointed to that position and she is also the Respondent’s witness in this matter. He testified that he was aggrieved by the decision of not being shortlisted for the position and decided to lodge a grievance through the Union. Meeting was held with the Circuit Manger with the all relevant parties and the Principal of the School, Ms Mdaka. It was then decided in the meeting that they must bury the hatchet and the Applicant should not proceed with the complaint or the grievance. However, immediately after this meeting when he tried to approach Ms Mdaka, she slammed the door behind him. This happened for three days in succession. He then requested Ms T M Maluleke to approach the Principal and broker a peace between them. By then, Ms T M Maluleke was not yet the HOD and was very close to the principal. He further testified that the charges were merely a witch hunt and were proffered against him because of the complaint he lodged about the post which he was not shortlisted. He further testified that as regards the issue of charges he was facing, there was no substance as he was just complying with the directive of the Provincial Head of the Department of Education, all the schools in the province were expected to follow the time table issued by the Provincial Head of the Department of Education. The time table for the examinations was already in place and was adopted by the School. The time provide for the half yearly examination which were to take place from 29 May 2018 to 14 June 2018. The Applicant was teaching English P3 Grade 7 on 12 June 2018 and S.S (History) on 13 June 2018. These were the examination dates provided by the HOD of the province. These examination were scheduled to take place from 9:00. Each paper takes at least 45 minutes or 1 hour. The Principal then decided to change the Management Plan and arranged that consultation with parents from Grade 4 to 7 should be held on the 12 June 2018 and from 5 to 6 should be held on the 13 June 2018. He further testified that both these consultation were clashing with the provincial examination time table. In his own words, that was an unlawful instruction for him to be expected to consult with the parents of the learners during those days. He further testified he did state that the learners must be assisted by parents at home. As regards count 2, the Applicant admitted that he was not going to comply with the Management Plan because it was in contradiction to the Provincial examination timetable. He then refused to go and engage with the parents, As regards the count 3, he further testified that he refused to accept the Curriculum package from the School administrator. He further testified that he did not comply with those instructions because, according to him, they were not lawful instruction. He further testified that in all his years as an educator, he has never been disrespectful and this was supported by the testimonials from his superiors which confirmed that he was reliable and dedicated educator. He further testified that he was now reporting at the Circuit and doing nothing.
Employer’s case
9. The Employer’s first witness, Ms Tinyiko Nancy Maluleke, testified that she has been employed as the HOD for Social Sciences and Languages from Jan 2018. She further testified that she knew the Applicant well and he reported to her as the HOD. She further testified that her relationship with the Applicant was purely professional. They were not in friendly terms, she will greet the applicant and will keep quite. But because she was professional, she will insist greeting him until he responded. She further testified that his negativity towards her was due to the post she was appointed in and the Applicant contested her appointment. She further denied that he approached her to try and normalize his relationship with the Principal. She further testified that animosity was as result of her appointment, so there was no possibility that he can approach her to broker peace between him and the principal. She further testified that the Management Plan is developed after the consultation with all the educators and was authorized by the principal. Once it is authorized it is adopted as an official document. The Management Plan was adopted before the Provincial Examination was issued. The Principal then amended the Plan as it had some clashes with the provincial examination time table. The changes were communicated to staff members. She further testified that the consultation with the parents was changed but that was not going to interfere with the provincial time table. The examination table remained the same to start as scheduled at nine. The papers to be written were either I hour or 45 minutes long. The parent’s consultation took place at 12:00.The Applicant refused to accept the Curriculum Package which was used for consultation with parents. All other educators, except the Applicant accepted the packages and consulted with the parents. She approached the Applicant to verify why he refused to consult with the parents. The Applicant vehemently stated that it’s no use to consult with parents from grade 4 to 7. The Applicant further stated that these things are done in former Model c schools The Applicant responded by saying that learners should be helped by parents at home. In fact, the Applicant was defiant and even refused and further stated that he will not follow the Management Plan as it will not help him with anything
10. The Employer’s second witness, Mr Walter Kubayi, testified that he has been employed as the school clerk from February 2013. He further testified that he knew the Applicant very well and he reported to the principal, Ms Mdaka and the HOD of Social Sciences, Ms T Maluleka. He further testified that he was given instructions by Ms Mdaka to give the Applicant the curriculum package. The Applicant refused to accept and stated in Xitsonga that he will not do those things.
ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS
11. The dispute was referred for arbitration in terms of section 186(2) (a) of the LRA. I am required to determine whether the Respondent’s conduct constituted an unfair labour practices. Section 186 (2) provides “Unfair labour practice" means the unfair suspension of an employee or any other unfair disciplinary action short of dismissal in respect of an employee;
12. I am required to issue an award with brief reasons. I do not wish to offer an exhaustive survey of all the evidence and arguments presented at the arbitration hearing. I have had regard to everything presented to me, and what follows is a brief summary of the evidence relevant to my findings only
13. The Employee faced the main charge of contravening Section 18(1) (t) of the Employment of Educators Act, 76 of 1998(as amended). Section 18(1) (t) provides that an employee commits a misconduct if he/she displays disrespect towards others in the work-place or demonstrates abusive or insolent behavior. The charges were formulated as follows:: “Charge1: Count 1 was that he told the HOD, Mrs Maluleke T N that the learners must be helped at home by their parents: Count 2 was that he said that he was not going to abide by the Management Plan because it did not help him with anything: Count 3 was that he refused to accept the Curriculum Package from the School Administrator.”
14. It is common cause that that there were instructions given to the Applicant by Head of Department for Social Sciences and languages, Ms Maluleka to consult with the leaners parents on the 12 June 2018. It is also common cause that every school is required to have the Management Plan. This plan is discuss in the senior management meetings of the school and then adopted for that school. It is also common cause that the consultation with the parents of the leaners is in line with the Management Plan. It is also common cause that all the schools in the province have a single half year examination time table. The examination time table is issued by the Province Head of the Department of Education
15. The basis of the Applicant’s defence is that he was justified in refusing to comply with an instruction to conduct a parental meeting on 12 June 2018 on the grounds that, the instructions were unreasonable and/or unlawful in that it undermined the exam time table of the circuit/district/province which is the higher authority. The Applicant further argued that he did not want to associate himself with the principal’s decision to defy the authority of the province/district/circuit. The Applicant argued that the principal has no authority to change the Management Plan to be in conflict with the provincial examination time table.
16. The issue to be decided is whether the Principal changed the examination time table. The Applicant’s version was contradicted by the version of the Respondent’s two witnesses who testified that the examination commenced at 09:00 as scheduled on the 12 June 2018. Both witnesses indicated that, parent’s involvement only started after examination and parents only started arriving at school around 11:30. The Applicant‘s version is that the examination started at 09:00 appears to be not the most probable version.
17. The onus is on the Employee to prove that the Employer’s act or omission amounted to unfair labour practice. The Applicant was aware that the basis of his action is to prove that indeed the Respondent changed the time. The changing of time table will include the changing the scheduled time. There was no evidence presented before me to prove that the examination started at 12:00. My finding is that the Respondent did not make any changes to the time but only amended that Management Plan in regards to parental consultation particularly for the 12 June 2018. It is also my finding that consultation with parents only took place after the examination.
18. The next question is whether the Applicant was entitled not to comply with the amended Management Plan. The Management is an official document which outlined the yearly plans of the school activities. The Applicant has made an admission that he complied with the Management Plan, except where he alleged it to be in contravention with the examination time table. My finding is that the Management Plan is official document. It is also my finding that this Management Plan does not emanate from the Circuit Office or the Office of the Provincial Head of Department. This is the document which is adopted by the individual schools. Therefore, by his own admission, the Applicant failed to comply with the Management Plan
19. Evidence was led that consultation with the parents is part of the curriculum. This process is crucial in assisting with the improvement in performance by the learners. Evidence was led that Applicant refused to accept the curriculum package. In fact, the Applicant, admitted that he refused to accept the package. Further evidence was led that the Applicant stated clearly that leaners should be assisted by their parents at home. He further stated that, parents consultation for grade 4 to 7 is something which was done in former model C school
20. The Applicant argued that the Principal committed occupational detriment in that she punished him for lodging the grievance with the circuit office by not speaking to him and making his employment intolerable. The Applicant was subjected to a disciplinary hearing at the behest of the School Governing Body. This inference is not probable. The real issue was that the Applicant was aggrieved in that he was not shortlisted for the position of the Head of Department at a school for Social Sciences and languages. A meeting was held to deal with the tension between the Applicant and it was agreed they must bury the hatchet. If the Applicant felt strong that his employment was intolerable, there was nothing which prevented him to refer the unfair labour dispute to the Council. The Applicant waited until there was disciplinary hearing instituted against him.
21. It also not correct that there charges were on the behest of the School Governing Body. The charges were on the behest of the Head of Department for the Department of Education. I also wish to point out that, if the instructions by the Principal and the School HOD were requiring the applicant to act were contrary the Province HOD instructions, why did the Department pursue disciplinary proceedings against him.
22. My analysis is that the Respondent’s version is the most probable version that the Applicant failed to comply with the law instructions. My analysis is the conduct of the Applicant borers around disrespect towards others in the work-place or demonstrates abusive or insolent behavior. My findings are that the Applicant has on a balance of probabilities failed to prove that Respondent has committed an act of unfair labour practice by issuing him with two month suspension without pay and a final written warning.
23. My findings is that the Applicant was correctly found to have contravened Section 18(1) (t) of the Employment of Educators Act, 76 of 1998(as amended). It is also my finding that the sanction imposed was appropriate under the circumstances.
AWARD
24. The Respondent, Limpopo Department of Education, Limpopo Province, did not commit an act of unfair labour practice against the Applicant, Mr Arone Vonani Mukhari by finding him to have contravened Section 18(1) (t) of the Employment of Educators Act, 76 of 1998(as amended), and by imposing the 2 months suspension without pay and a final written warning.
25. The application is dismissed; and
26. No order as to costs
PANELIST: JEFFREY NKUNA