Arbitrator: Minette van der Merwe
Case Reference No.: ELRC 1374-25/26 FS
Date of award: 02 September 2026

In the Arbitration between:

South African Democratic Teachers Union (“SADTU”)
obo Lettia Mantshadi Mokoena Applicant

and

Department of Education – Free State Respondent

DETAILS OF HEARING AND REPRESENTATION

1. This is the arbitration award in the matter between SADTU obo Lettia Mantshadi Mokoena (the Applicant) and the Department of Education – Free State (the Respondent), which arbitration was held on 29 May 2026, 29 & 30 July 2026 at the Respondent’s provincial office in Bloemfontein and finalized on 21 August 2026 at the Respondent’s district office in Welkom.
2. The Applicant was represented by Mr BE Matseletsele, the union official. The Respondent was represented by Mr T Tsunke, the Labour Relations Officer.
3. The proceedings were digitally recorded on all dates, and handwritten notes were kept. The services of an interpreter were not required.

ISSUE TO BE DECIDED
4. The dispute was referred in terms of section 191(5)(iii) of the Labour Relations Act, 66 of 1995, as amended (the LRA), as a claim of unfair dismissal which allegedly occurred on 4 February 2026.

5. Both the procedural and substantive fairness of the dismissal were challenged.
6. In the event that I find in her favour, the Applicant sought to be retrospectively reinstated.
7. The Respondent challenged the existence of a dismissal and argued that the Applicant had tendered her written resignation on 12 January 2026, which was implemented on 12 February 2026.

BACKGROUND TO THE ISSUE
8. Despite my directive to the effect, parties failed to have a pre-arbitration conference, and to submit the minutes thereof. From the events of 29 and 30 July 2026 this failure was solely caused by Mr Matseletsele.

9. The Applicant submitted documentary bundle “A” and the Respondent submitted documentary bundles “R” and “B” into evidence. The veracity of the documents was not disputed, and it was accepted as it purported to be.
10. The Applicant submitted document “D” into evidence during the cross-examination of the Respondent’s witness. This document was ruled to be unreliable, yet relevant, as the date on which it was drafted and submitted could not be proven.
11. The Respondent called 1 (one) witness to testify. The Applicant called three witnesses to testify in addition to herself.

SURVEY OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT
12. The testimonies, under oath, are fully captured on the digital recording, and a copy of the digital recording is available on request from the ELRC. Below is only a summary of the evidence. If evidence is not captured herein, it does not mean that it was not considered.

Evidence of the Applicant:

13. The Applicant, Lettia Mantshadi Mokoena, started to work at Teto High School during May 2024 on consecutive fixed term contracts. On the last workday in December 2025 the Principal informed her that her contract would not be renewed. She found permanent employment at a school in Bothaville, which she had to commence with on 13 January 2026. The Principal of Teto High School informed her that her contract was renewed and was appointed on another six-month fixed term contract on 12 January 2026, assigned classes and she rendered her services from 13 January 2026 onwards. The Principal requested her to hand in a resignation letter on 12 January 2026 for Teto High School, which she did, but the resignation letter was not supposed to be approved. She disputed the authenticity of her resignation letter on page 3 of “R” in that it contained an error that referred to “2025” instead of “2026” and that it was not her signature on the document. She confirmed that she did not withdraw her resignation at any stage after 12 January 2026. She denied the version that the Principal requested her to withdraw her resignation letter in writing.
14. On 4 February 2026, during the morning briefing in the staff room, he made her stand up in front of her colleagues and stated that she had allegedly accuse him of murdering teachers and that he no longer wanted anything to do with her and would find a way to get rid of her. She confirmed her written statement of events as contained on page 12 of “A”. Later during the morning, she met the Principal in the corridors as she was on her way to class and he told her to leave the premises. Later during the day, on a group WhatsApp she was requested by the HOD (Head of Department) to attend to her classes, and she texted: “Your principal said I shouldn’t go near his learners until he finds a way to terminate my contract…He will give direction as to what should happen to my classes.” Her text was later deleted from the group by the Principal, and he removed her from the group chat.
15. On 10 February 2026 Ms Khoma from the district office called her about her resignation letter that the Principal submitted, and she raised concerns with it. She indicated to Ms Khoma that she did not resign. She visited Ms Khoma to see the resignation letter and was referred to Ms Khoma’s Supervisor on 12 February 2026. She was then told that she was no longer on the PERSAL system, as she had resigned.
16. She confirmed that she did not attempt to return to the workplace again after 4 February 2026, and she stated that Mr Matseletsele did not make her aware that the Principal requested her to return to work, through her union, on 11 February 2026 (document “B”), or that the Principal asked about her whereabouts through her union.
17. The Applicant wanted to call Ms Mosibo to testify, but she could not give direct evidence on any aspect relevant to the dispute, as such her evidence was irrelevant.
18. The 2nd witness, Lerato Edmond Lephatsa, (“Lephatsa”), was the Secretary of SADTU. He attended a meeting with the Principal, along with Mr Matseletsele and Mavundla, about the Applicant. The Applicant was not present in the meeting held on 10 February 2026. During the meeting the Principal denied having asked the Applicant to leave the premises, and that he had been wondering why the Applicant had not been reporting for work. The Principal requested that the Applicant report to work, but he advised the Applicant not to return, because he deduced from the meeting that the working relationship between parties had collapsed. He was unaware of the WhatsApp message from the Principal to Mr Matseletsele (document “B”) on 11 February 2026 in terms of which the Applicant was requested to return to work.
19. The 3rd witness, Victor Senyane (“Senyane”) was subpoenaed by the Applicant, and he testified that he was the Human Resources Practitioner in Welkom, and he has never been involved in the Applicant’s case. He testified that, ordinarily, a resignation letter would be written by an Educator, stamped by the Principal on the date of receipt, and forwarded to the District Office for implementation.
20. The 4th witness, Masitunya Khoma (“Khoma”) was subpoenaed by the Applicant, and she testified that she did not know the Applicant, and that the Applicant did not visit her office. The Principal of Teto High School forwarded the Applicant’s resignation letter to her, and she processed it. There was nothing strange about the resignation letter. The resignation letter, although dated “12 January 2025” was stamped with the school stamp on 12 January 2026, which was the correct date. She requested the Principal to ask the Applicant to amend her resignation letter to reflect the correct date but she has not been provided with another resignation letter from the Applicant.

Evidence of the Respondent:
21. The only witness, Pateng Rakatsinyane (“Rakatsinyane”) was the Principal at the time of the Applicant’s employment at Teto High School, but he was now a Circuit Manager at the district office in Welkom. On 11 January 2026 he received a message from the Applicant that she had apparently tried to call him on 9 January 2026. She indicated that she planned to resign from Teto High School as she found permanent employment in Bothaville. He requested the resignation to be in writing, which she duly submitted on 12 January 2026. She left the school premises after she submitted her resignation.

22. On 13 January 2026, Ms Anna indicated to him that the Applicant wanted to withdraw her resignation because the position in Bothaville had apparently not yet been approved. He actually needed the Applicant at Teto High School, and so he requested her to write a withdrawal of her resignation letter and submit same within a month, and she reported for duty on 14 January 2026. The withdrawal letter was never submitted to him. He gave her a month’s grace because her resignation letter did not stipulate an effective date, and because she was in limbo with the Bothaville post, so he wanted to be fair towards her.
23. On 12 February 2026, a month after the Applicant tendered her written resignation letter, he submitted it to the district office for processing. He did this after the Applicant failed to report for duty since 4 February 2026. On 10 and 11 February 2026 he requested the Applicant to report for work through her union, but to no avail. During the meeting on 10 February 2026, it was agreed between him and the union that the Applicant would return to work on 11 February 2026.
24. He deleted the Applicant’s message on the group chat on 4 February 2026 because the group chat was only for instructions to report for classes, not for any other matters. As Admin of the group chat, he had to manage it for its intended purpose. He never told the Applicant to leave the premises, especially not on 4 February 2026, as alleged, in front of other staff members. He had no authority to dismiss an Educator; hence he could not have dismissed the Applicant. He had tried to get the Applicant to report back to work to no avail. She Applicant was a productive Educator, and pivotal part of the staff.
25. He was unaware of the existence of any resignation letter from the Applicant other than page 3 of “R”, as that document was the one that she had given to him on 12 January 2026. The witnesses established the authenticity of “B” by showing the text trail on his phone.

ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT
26. Parties requested to submit written closing arguments by no later than 27 August 2026. Only the Respondent filed its closing arguments, which were duly considered, but would not be repeated herein.

27. In this matter, the Applicant bears the onus to prove the existence of a dismissal. Only once the Applicant is able to discharge this onus does the Respondent bear the onus to prove the fairness of the dismissal in terms of section 192 of the Act on a balance of probabilities.
28. The Applicant claimed that page 3 of “R” was not her resignation letter, as it contained a dating error and that it was not her signature on the document. She submitted “D” into evidence in an attempt to prove her version. Document “D” was found to be unreliable, as it could not be proven when the document was drafted and/or submitted. All things considered, none of this takes the Applicant’s case any further, as she repeatedly confirmed that she resigned on 12 January 2026. This fact is common cause. It is immaterial what was contained in the resignation letter, other than an express resignation.
29. The Applicant claims that she was told by Rakatsinyane to resign, whereas Rakatsinyane confirmed he requested a resignation letter from the Applicant, but the versions as to why the resignation was tendered differ. On this aspect, the probabilities favour the version of the Respondent, which is that the Applicant, on her own version, found permanent employment at a school in Bothaville, which led to her resignation. However, the Applicant then accepted a fixed-term contract for six months with Teto High School and started to work on either 13 or 14 January 2026 until 4 February 2026 and was paid her salary. The Applicant testified that she declined the offer from the Bothaville School to work at Teto High School.
30. Rakatsinyane testified that he did not immediately implement the Applicant’s resignation with the district office, because the Applicant’s appointment at Bothaville was not yet approved, as such he gave her a month to either withdraw her resignation in writing, or to fulfil her six-month contract. It does raise questions why the Applicant did not issue a written withdrawal of her resignation if she intended to continue with her six-month fixed term contract with Teto high School, and if she did not really want to or meant to resign, and if she had, in fact, as per her version, rejected the position in Bothaville.
31. The events of the period 4 to 12 February 2026 are what is material to this dispute. The Applicant claimed that she was humiliated and told that she would have to leave the premises of the school and that Rakatsinyane would get rid of her in the staff room, in front of five colleagues (named on page 12 of “A”). However, the Applicant did not call even a single person to testify in support of her version. This was a critical failure by the Applicant, considering that the onus vested in her to establish the existence of a dismissal. This failure leaves me with the mutually destructive versions of the Applicant and Rakatsinyane only.
32. It was common cause that the Applicant’s last day at the school was 4 February 2026. The attendance registers did not take the Applicant’s case any further, as it did not assist in establishing a dismissal.
33. Following the events on 4 February 2026, it was common cause that a meeting was held between SADTU officials and Rakatsinyane on 10 February 2026. Lephatsa confirmed that Principal requested that the Applicant return to work, and on Lephatsa’s own version, he assumed the breakdown in the relationship and advised the Applicant not to return to work. Rakatsinyane led unchallenged evidence that it was agreed between him and SADTU officials during the aforementioned meeting that the Applicant would return to work on 11 February 2026, which she did not do. It was further proven that a WhatsApp message was sent by the Principal to Matseletsele on 11 February 2026 requesting the Applicant to return to work. This request was either not conveyed to the Applicant or ignored by the Applicant.
34. The advice by SADTU officials on, at least, 10 February 2026 to the Applicant was misguided and detrimental. The Applicant ought to have returned to work, as requested by her Principal.
35. Even if Rakatsinyane told the Applicant to leave the school premises on 4 February 2026, which version I do not accept as it is unproven, this did not constitute an express dismissal. The Applicant did not do anything to establish her employment status after 4 February 2026 from Rakatsinyane, and she did not heed to the instructions from the Principal to return to work. In this regard, the Applicant was the author of her own misfortune.
36. On 12 February 2026, Rakatsinyane forwarded the Applicant’s resignation letter to the district office for processing, one month after its receipt. The Applicant’s services were then terminated by the Respondent for reasons related to resignation.
37. On a conspectus of all the evidence before me, the probabilities favour the Respondent, and it is found that the version of the Respondent is more probable than that of the Applicant.
38. The Applicant has failed, on a balance of probabilities, to prove that she was dismissed on 4 February 2026.
39. In the absence of a formal withdrawal of her resignation, the Respondent correctly processed her resignation from the services of the Respondent.
40. The Applicant’s claim of unfair dismissal stands to be dismissed.

AWARD
41. The Applicant, Lettia Mantshadi Mokoena, failed to establish the existence of a dismissal by the Respondent, the Department of Education– Free State.

42. The Applicant is not entitled to any relief and her case is hereby dismissed.

Minette van der Merwe
ELRC Panelist