IN THE MATTER BETWEEN: ELRC955-24/25LP

LEGODI THABANG JOB APPLICANT

And

Education Department of Limpopo RESPONDENT

DETAILS OF THE HEARING AND REPRESENTATION
1.1. The arbitration hearing into an alleged Unfair Labour Practice, referred in terms of section 186(2) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995, as amended was held and finalized at The Department of Education-Limpopo, Polokwane on 20 March 2025.
1.2. Both parties attended the proceedings. The respondent was represented by Portia Modipa, its assistant director, while the applicant was represented by Hezekiel Madire, union official of SADTU.
1.3. The hearing was held in English and was digitally recorded.

ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
2.1. Whether or not the decision of the respondent to fine the applicant an amount of R3000.00 and give him final a written warning was substantively fair. If not, I must determine appropriate relief in terms of section 193 of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995, as amended.

BACKGROUND TO THE ISSUES
3.1. The applicant was found guilty of using a vulgar word, voetsek, towards the principal, Ms Ramootla, when demanding his appointment letter for marking exam papers. The employee pleaded not guilty to the charge.
3.2. The relief sought by the applicant is that the fine of R3000.00 and the final written warning be set aside.
3.3. Prior to the commencement of the proceedings, the applicant submitted a bundle of documents marked “A”, while the respondent indicated that it would rely on the applicant’s bundle of documents.
3.4. The applicant closed his case after leading his own evidence, while the respondent closed its case after leading the evidence of three witnesses.
3.5. Only the applicant’s written closing arguments were received on the agreed date and time.

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS
4.1. The following is a summary of only relevant evidence submitted by both parties and which was taken into account in order to arrive at a decision in the matter.

THE APPLICANT’S CASE
5.1. The applicant, Job Thabang Legodi, testified that he denied that he had said voetsek to the principal. On 07 December 2021, he approached the head of department, Mr Rammutla, and requested his appointment letter for marking exam papers. The head of department informed him that he was still busy with the interviews but requested the SGB chairperson to accompany him to the principal’s office. The SGB chairperson entered the principal’s office alone and requested his appointment letter. The principal then informed the SGB chairperson that she was not going to hand over the letter to the chairperson because she/he was not supposed to be involved in teachers matters. He then entered the office alone and requested the letter. The principal then gave him an envelope marked June/July 2021. Upon noticing that the envelope was marked June/July 2021, he immediately asked the principal if he was also appointed to have marked June/July examination. The principal told him it was a mistake and immediately gave him the correct envelope. An argument between him and the principal ensued after he asked her why she withheld his appointment whereas other teachers were given their appointment letters well in advance. When he went out of the office, the principal followed him while uttering some words which he could not hear. He never said voetsek to the principal. When he argued with the principal, there was no one around. His relationship with the principal was always sour even before the alleged incident. The principal always denies him extra classes with his learners.
5.2. Under cross-examination, the applicant testified that his relationship with the principal was always sour even before the alleged incident. The principal always denies him extra classes with his learners. During his disciplinary hearing, the witnesses that were called by the respondent only testified on the charge that he was not found guilty.

THE RESPONDENT’S CASE
6.1. The respondent’s first witness was Marupeng Tiny Ramootla. She testified that on 07 December 2021, the applicant requested the SGB chairperson to come to her office to request the appointment letter on his behalf. While explaining to the SGB chairperson that it is against the Department’s procedure to hand over the appointment letter to a person who the letter is not addressed to him/her, the applicant was standing next to the door, and he was able to hear everything that she was explaining to the SGB chairperson. Upon hearing that she was not going to hand over the letter to the chairperson, the applicant immediately entered her office shouting that she must immediately sign the letter and hand it over to him. She then informed the applicant that the letter had been signed together with the letters of other teachers and that all teachers were informed during morning brief to approach her office and collect their appointment letters. The applicant always does not attend the school morning briefs. The applicant then said she should hand over his letter to him before he can do something to her. When she asked him to stop threatening her, he said voetsek. When the argument ensued between her and the applicant, she was not alone in the staffroom. When she first arrived at the school, the relationship with the applicant started on a bad note because he appeared to be disrespectful to his senior because he always defied her instructions. On the day of the incident, she never shouted at the applicant since she knows him very well that he should be treated with caution because he blows hot and cold for no reason.
6.2. Under cross-examination, Marupeng Tiny Ramootla, testified that she was not present when the applicant approached the interview panel. The SGB chairperson told her that the applicant requested him to come and request the appointment letter on his behalf. Because the applicant was standing just next to the door, he heard everything that she was telling the chairperson. She had no reason to refuse to hand over the appointment letter to the applicant because doing so would have got her into trouble. She had allowed the applicant to go for marking on several occasions. If indeed she was against the applicant being appointed as a marker, she would have done so when he first submitted his application because she must approve it and recommend him to the circuit office. Refusing the applicant to go for marking would have prejudiced the school more than the applicant. The deputy principal and the SGB chairperson heard when the argument ensued, and when the applicant said voetsek to her. The deputy principal has since retired.
6.3. The respondent’s second witness was Lawrence Chipa. He testified that he investigated the allegations against the applicant. During the investigations, the applicant denied all the allegations levelled against him. During the investigation, he interviewed Mr Rammotla, the deputy principal who has since retired, and he confirmed to him that he heard the argument between the applicant and the principal because his office was next to that of the principal, and it was open. Mr Rammotla also informed him that he heard the applicant telling the principal that she should hand over his things since they were not hers. Mr Rammotla also heard the applicant telling the principal in Sepedi that “Ke Mmotong mo ke tla go dira ka mokgwa o mongwe, o ngwanenyana”.
6.4. Under cross-examination, Lawrence Chipa, that he was not present on the day of the alleged incident and everything that he submitted was conveyed to him by witnesses that witnessed the incident. During the investigation, it never came to his attention or suggested that the witnesses that he interviewed had other ulterior motive to falsely implicate the applicant.
6.5. The respondent’s third and last witness was Mampe Reratilwe Manyaka. She testified that she chaired the applicant’s disciplinary hearing. During the hearing, the witnesses proved on balance of probabilities that the applicant was indeed guilty of charge 1 because they submitted that he was very angry on the day in question. Her sanction was in accordance with the Educators Employment Act.
6.6. Under cross-examination, Mampe Reratilwe Manyaka, testified that she was not present on the day of the alleged incident. She found the applicant guilty based on the evidence presented before her.

ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS
7.1 In this matter, the witnesses, the retired deputy principal and the SGB chairperson, whom it is alleged that they overheard the argument between the principal and the applicant were never called as witnesses by either party. However, it is common cause that the two had an argument on the day in question and that their relationship was sour from the beginning. The applicant’s denial that he had said voetsek to the principal was not convincing at all. The applicant failed to submit convincing evidence that the principal had ulterior motive to falsely implicate him. His claim that the principal withheld his appointment because she was against his appointment and that she always denied him extra classes with his learners, is a classic example of clutching at straws. It was never disputed by the applicant that she had approved his appointment on previous occasions despite their sour relationship. If indeed he was denied extra classes with his learners and he considered those extra classes very important, surely, he could have escalated the matter to higher authorities. The probability of his version is doubtful.
7.2. On the other hand, the principal was very convincing, credible and reliable. She testified in a relaxed manner and appeared not to have been coached. During cross-examination, she never wavered or changed any detail. Her insistence that she has no reason to falsely implicate the applicant appeared very convincing. Her version that she facilitated his application and also recommended him for appointment to the circuit office, went unchallenged. The principal knows the applicant very well and how he should be treated. The version of the principal was probable and convincing.

AWARD
8.1. The applicant’s, Legodi Thabang Job’s, application is dismissed.

ELRC COMMISSSIONER: NICHOLUS SONO
DATE: 31 March 2025