05 November 2025 – ELRC331-25/26LP

ARBITRATION AWARD
Case No: ELRC 331-25/26LP
ARBITRATOR: THOMAS MAHASHA
DATE: 05 NOVEMBER 2025

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:

SIKHWIVHILU FHULUFHELO APPLICANT

AND

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, LIMPOPO RESPONDENT

DETAILS OF THE HEARING AND REPRESENTATION.

1) This arbitration took place in terms of the referral of the matter by the employee to the ELRC. It was heard physically on 26 August 2025, 13 October 2025 and 16 October 2025, respectively at Vhembe West District, Makwarela. The employee was in attendance represented by Hezekiel Madire of SADTU. The employer was also in attendance at the hearing, represented by Eric Nkhumeleni Nyathela, the Deputy Director of the Department of Education.

ISSUES TO BE DECIDED.
2) The dismissal of an employee is not in dispute. The employee argued that dismissal in his absence was substantively and procedurally unfair. The employer denied the allegations on the basis that the employee willingly refused to attend the hearing and that the dismissal was therefore, procedurally and substantively fair. I was therefore, called upon to determine whether or not the employee was in wilful default, and if not, whether or not the dismissal was procedurally and substantively fair.

BACKGROUND TO THE DISPUTE

3) The employee was appointed as an educator at Marhorhwani Malali Secondary School for a period of 13 years, earning an annual salary of R 35 031, 95.
4) The employer charged him for beating two learners, threatening the School Principal, Ms Nkanyane Mathebula, refusing to submit learner’s scripts and marksheets for final year examinations on time without valid reasons, misusing the stationery by printing pictures of different girlfriends and pasted them in the classroom, reporting for duty in the company of his girlfriend, dressing unprofessionally in the workplace by putting trousers under his buttocks, thus displaying underwear and showing abusive and insolent behaviour by telling SMT members that they do not have qualifications and that they are just SMT members due to age.
5) The hearing was held in the absence of the employee. He was found guilty and dismissed in absentia on 31 May 2025. The employee had a clean disciplinary record at the time of his dismissal.
6) He declared a dispute challenging the substantive fairness and procedural fairness of his dismissal. Both parties exchanged one set of bundle of documents.
7) The employee sought reinstatement.

SURVEY OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS

EMPLOYER’S EVIDENCE.
8) Phethani Patrick Netshiomvhani, an Assistant Director: Labour and Wellness testified that he visited Marhorhwani Malali Secondary School on 26 March 2025 at 11:54 for purposes of serving a notice to appear at the disciplinary hearing to an employee. The employee refused to acknowledge receipt. He served a notice to an employee accompanied by the School Principal. The employee refused to acknowledge receipt of the notice. Soon after refusing to acknowledge receipt, the employee was seen driving out to the District allegedly to the District office with a blue VW polo. Upon arrival at the District office, he told Makhari about his refusal to acknowledge receipt of the notice.
9) He requested the principal to sign confirming refusal to acknowledge receipt.

10) Makhado Rachel’s testimony was that he drove to the school to serve the employee with the outcome of a disciplinary hearing. Upon arrival at the school, he requested the School Principal Ms Nkanyane to call the educator. The employee refused to come to the office to meet with District officials.
11) He called one educator to come and witness the employee’s refusal. The educator requested to be given an opportunity to go and convince the educator to come and acknowledge receipt of the outcomes. The employee still refused to come. He requested the School pPincipal to sign confirming that the employee had refused to acknowledge receipt. He left the outcome of the disciplinary hearing with the principal to serve the employee at any time should he so wish.

12) Shivambu Hlayiseka Elias testified that he was appointed to preside over the disciplinary hearing involving the employee. He honoured his appointment by attending to a disciplinary enquiry on 08 April 2025. Upon realizing that the employee was not in attendance, he phoned the Principal who confirmed that the employee was at work. He phoned the employee. The employee did not pick the phone. He phoned the Deputy Principal and requested her to give the phone over to the employee. The employee refused to take the phone call. As he was kept holding the phone, he heard the employee on the background saying that he would not attend and that the employer may do as they wish.
13) He went beyond the call of his duties when he decided to phone the employee.
14) He decided to procced with the disciplinary hearing in the absence of the employee in compliance with schedule 2 which gave him powers where the employee was served with a notice and was in default without providing reasons of absence. The employee waived his right to be heard. The employee could not submit his mitigating factors because he was not in attendance.
15)
16) Mariba Gavaza Joyce testified that on 05 May 2025 she was an Acting Principal. On that day, she was approached by the learner, Nhlohlotelo Mashele who was crying. The leaner told her that he was assaulted by the employee. She called the educator and told her what the learner had informed her about. The educator agreed beating the child. He immediately grabbed the learner and went away with him.
17) Sayina Josephine Rikhotso testified that she was an Acting Deputy Pincipal on 7 August 2024. On that day, she was approached by Ndzhaka Mabasa who informed her that he was assaulted by the educator. Although she did not witness the beating, she saw the condition in which the learner was after the assault. She noticed that the learner had suffered an injury on her right hand chick which was swollen with finger print marks.
18) Mr Mabasa took the picture of a child to serve as a proof of the injury the learner had sustained as instructed by the School Governing Body.
19) During 2024, the employee came to the school with trousers displaying his underwear. He asked him to pull his trousers. The employee responded by saying “who are you, you are not the Principal. The employee showed disrespect to the School Management Team (SMT) by saying “you do not have qualifications, you are nothing”.

20) Mabasa Christian Maroon testified that he is an SGB deputy secretary. He was close to the principal’s office the moment the learner was brought to the office. He saw the learner crying. He took the learner’s picture.

21) Ngobeni Tintswalo Joel testified that he is the SGB Chairperson. On 7 August 2024, he was at the principal’s office when the learner came asking to see the Principal. The Principal sent the learner to Josephine Rikhotso. Although he did not witness the beating, he saw the finger print marks on the child’s face.

22) Chavalala Innocent Khongelani testified that he is the Science Departmental Head. In terms of the standing practice and procedures, educators are given three days to mark and submit scripts and marks for moderation.
23) The educator taught Technology grades 8 and 9, and Natural Science. Learners wrote their examination on 11 November 2024. The educator was expected to submit on the fourth day, something he did not do.
24) Natural Science was written on 20 November 2024. Upon realizing that the educator did not submit the scripts, he approached him requesting for the mark sheets. The educator promised to submit on the 25 November 2024. He did not submit. When approached, the educator said he would submit at his own time. On 29 November 2024, the Circuit Manager demanded submission of the mark sheets.
25) On 13 December 2024, he was called by the Circuit Manager to collect the mark sheets at the Circuit Office. He went to the Circuit Office, took the scripts and recorded marks on the mark sheet.

26) Nkanyani Queen Mathebula testified that on 6 May 2024, she was approached by Mariba (educator) who informed her that the educator had assaulted the learner. She called the educator who initially denied knowledge of the assault. She called the learner who related what had happened. The educator changed his tune and agreed to assault the learner.
27) The educator threatened to burn her and her vehicle. He said he would organise the guys to deal with her. Fearing for her safety, she called an SMT meeting. SMT refused to entertain the matter and advised her to approach SADTU. SADTU requested her to submit a report in writing, which she did. She submitted a report to the Circuit Manager and went to an extent of opening a case docket.
28) The employee was arrested at the school the following day. He was detained for one day.
29) On 7 August 2024 she was in her office with Netshionvhani when Josephine Rikhotso came with a learner Ndzhaka who was allegedly assaulted by the educator. She asked Mr Mabasa to take the learner’s picture and delegated Josephine Rikhotso to investigate the incident.
30) She was informed by Mr Chabalala that the educator did not submit scripts and mark sheets. Despite several reminders, the educator did not submit the scripts. The matter was reported to the Circuit Office. The educator promised to submit scripts and mark sheets to the Circuit Office. He did not submit on the promised days. She phoned the Circuit Manager informing him about the employee’s failure to submit scripts. The Circuit Manager requested that she hands over a phone to the educator. The educator refused to take the call.
31) She was called by the Circuit Manager on 13 December 2024 to collect scripts at the circuit office. It was made possible for the learners to be resulted because she worked until 00:00.
32) On 24 January 2024, she had a meeting with the educator conscientizing him about the dangers of misusing of stationery, dressing unprofessionally and chasing learners out of the class. The educator was asked about the pictures he had pasted on a notice board. The educator responded by saying “they are my yellow bones”.
33) On 27 May 2022 she delegated Marivha to be an Acting Principal because on that day she attended a workshop at Matshila lodge. On that day, Marivha informed her that the educator reported for duty accompanied by his girlfriend and that he had knocked off early without reporting or permission. She called the educator to ask him about the allegations. The educator said he did not know who the SMT members were. She told the educator that his failure to report was uncalled for and that he should have informed someone and signed the departure register.
34) The educator chased the learners out of the class. He used vulgar language in class. At one point, he told learners that he was going to teach them about “vagina”. He would teach learners while standing on a table. She gave the educator verbal warnings which she logged on a logbooks which were stolen. She denied that she recommended charges against the employee because he was declared in excess. Educators were only declared in excess towards the end of the year.
35) The educator walked out when SADTU site read the letter of complaints against him.
36) She called the learner who had bruises on her face and asked the educator what had happened. The educator walked away.
37) The educator refused to sign the logbook on 26 January 2024 and walked away. The educator reported for work wearing a cap stating that he had a problem. When requested to provide a doctor’s report, he walked away.
38) The employee was not on duty on 26 March 2025. She never received an application of absence from the educator. Educator refused to receive the outcome of the hearing despite Ndzukula talking to him.

EMPLOYEE’S EVIDENCE
39) The applicant’s evidence was that he did not attend the disciplinary hearing because he was not notified thereof.
40) On 26 March 2025 he was not at school when the alleged notice of the disciplinary hearing was served. On that day, he had consulted with a doctor. He could not attend the disciplinary hearing which was scheduled for 08 April 2025 because he had consulted with his doctor. He denied signing an attendance register on both days.
41) He denied that he drove out with a blue polo after refusing to be issued with a notice of the disciplinary hearing.
42) He did not receive the outcome of the disciplinary hearing on 22 May 2025. He saw the charge sheet and the outcome of the disciplinary hearing for the first time on 25 August 2025 when he was preparing for an arbitration. He referred an unfair dismissal dispute on 17 June 2025. He was told by Ravhuandzo that he was not dismissed. He therefore, reported for work on 19 June 2025. He was not paid on 20 June 2025. He therefore, declared a dismissal dispute.
43) Although he was at work on 22 May 2025, he was not served with the outcome of the disciplinary hearing. He denied being called to acknowledge receipt of the notice of the disciplinary hearing and the outcome thereof.
44) He denied assaulting the learners. As he was busy teaching Technology, Nhlohlotelo Mashele made noise. He approached Nhlohlotelo who ran around attempting to get out of the class. As the child was about to get out of the class, he was stopped by Marivha who grabbed him and placed him at the front desk. He did not assault Ndzhaka. Ndzhaka stood by the window and said he could not be taught by a slow educator. As he approached him, the learner ran away.
45) When cross examined he agreed that he attempted to bit the child, but could not do so because Nhlohlotelo ran away. He agreed that he did not challenge Nhlohlotelo’s testimony that he promised to give him R10.
46) He denied not challenging the existence of the fingerprints on the child’s face. He did not know why he was wrongfully implicated.
47) . Although he was arrested and detained for threatening the Principal, he denied committing the offence. He was released the following day. He was not informed of the reason of his arrest until he was informed by his representative. He was charged and dismissed because he refused to be transferred to another school following an R& R process.
48) It is not true that he refused to submit scripts. The Principal refused to take his scripts. He could not submit to the Head of Department because he was instructed to submit to the circuit office. He could not submit scripts to the HOD (Chavalala) because he was told to submit to the Principal. He submitted scripts on 28 November 2024 at the Circuit Manager’s office. He promised to submit the scripts to the Circuit Office on 13 December 2024, which he did not do.
49) He denied ever reporting for work in the company of his girlfriend. His girlfriend does not even know where he works.
50) He denied dressing unprofessionally to an extent that he could display his underwear. He denied showing abusive and insolent behavior towards his fellow workers.
51) He denied printing pictures. He agreed that he never showed any remorse.

ANALYSIS OF ARGUMENTS AND FINDINGS.

52) It is trite that employees have a right to fair labour practices as envisaged by section 23 (1). Article 7 of the International Labour Organization (the ILO) Convention on Termination of Employment 158 of 1982 provides: ‘The employment of a worker shall not be terminated for reasons related to the worker’s conduct or performance before he is provided an opportunity to defend himself against the allegations made, unless the employer cannot reasonably be expected to provide this opportunity’.
53) The respondent bears a duty to prove procedural and substantive fairness of the dismissal.

Procedural Fairness.

54) The crux of the matter is whether or not the educator was granted an opportunity to be heard. It is not whether he was in attendance or not.
55) This notion was supported by the decision in the case of Slagnet (Pty) Ltd) v Building, Construction and Allied Workers’ Union and Others 1995 (1) SA 742 (A) where the court held: “ It is within the province of the employer who holds a disciplinary enquiry to determine its form and the procedure to be adopted, provided always that they must be fair. Fairness requires, inter alia, that the employee should be given an opportunity of meeting the case against him: the employer must obey the injunction audi alteram partem”.
56) In National Union of Metal Workers of SA v Vetsak Co-operative Ltd and Others 1996 (4) SA 577(A) Smalberger JA said at 589C-D: “ Fairness comprehends that regards must be had not only to the position and interests of the worker, but also those of the employer, in order to make a balanced and equitable assessment. In judging fairness, a court applies a moral or value judgement to establish facts and circumstances…..”
57) I agree with the applicant that the attendance register submitted by the respondent is devoid of the applicant’s signature. It is probable that he could not have signed the attendance register because of his defiant behaviour. However, I was also alive to the fact that the respondent also failed to submit other attendance registers which either bore the applicant’s signature, or was devoid thereof.
58) The applicant’s bare denial with regard to service of a notice to appear at the disciplinary hearing, lives much to be desired. There was no conclusive evidence that he was not at work on 26 March 2025, being the date on which the notice was to be served to him. There was enough evidence presented to prove that he could have been at work. If he was indeed not on duty, he could have reported his absence to the School Principal, something he did not deny he did not do. Even if it could be accepted that he was in loggerheads with the school principal, he could have reported his absence to any of the educators he was in good terms with.
59) He did not deny that he drives a blue VW Polo. I was convinced that on the day in question, he was seen driving out with his blue VW Polo after refusing to be served with a notice. He did not provide reasons why all the respondent’s witnesses would wrongfully implicate him. The only witness he told us about was his school principal.
60) Even if it could be accepted that he did not receive a notice, it is disheartening why he did not challenge Shivambu’s testimony that he phoned the school seeking to know his whereabouts and that he refused to talk to him over a phone. He also did not deny that he still refused to come to the Principal’s office to acknowledge receipt of the notice despite having been given an opportunity to do so.
61) His testimony was full of contradictions with regard to the date on which he declared a dispute. I find it to be highly improbable that he could have declared a dispute prior to him being informed of his dismissal. He would not have made enquiries about his dismissal if he was not informed that he was dismissed.

Attendance registers.

62) Although I agree with the educator that he did not sign the attendance registers for the two days in question, it appears that he had a tendency of not taking instructions. The fact that he did not sign the attendance register cannot be the only conclusive proof that he was not at the school on the 26th March 2025 and 08 April 2025.
63) The same reason he had for refusing to sign a logbook for the warnings issued to him, could have possibly applied for his failure to sign the attendance registers.

Medical certificates.

64) It is trite that the medical certificate submitted by an employee has little evidential value. In this case, the medical certificates do not reflect an independent medical diagnosis of the illness or an opinion as to the fitness of the educator to perform his normal duties, let alone his fitness to attend a disciplinary hearing.
65) The medical certificates appear to be in standard form containing printed and handwritten parts. It reads: The undersigned hereby certifies that Sikhwivhilu Fhulufelo was examined by me on 26/03/2025 (date of first examination) and again on—————(date of last examination). According to my knowledge/as I was informed, he/she was unfit for duty school from 26/03/2025 to 27/03/2025. School/duty will be resumed on the 28/03/2025.
Nature of illness/operation/injury Ocular condition.
Review date ………………….
SIGNATUTURE DATE

……………………….. 26/03/2025

66) The second medical certificate was issued by the same medical doctor on 8 April 2025. It is worth to mention that the printed words are in ordinary script and the handwritten insertions are in bold.
67) The medical doctor had in his second medical certificate, stated that he was seeing the educator for the first time on 08 April 2025, yet it was alleged he was seen for the first time on 26 March 2025. The nature of illness was referred to as ocular condition which is a general term referring to either, an eye disease, vision problem, visual impairment, eye disorder, sight impairment, etc.
68) It was therefore, necessary for the medical practitioner to have given testimony by him/herself of deposed an affidavit explaining the medical condition of the educator.
69) In National Union of Metalworkers of SA and Others v Kaefer Energy Projects (Pty) Ltd [2021] ZALCJHB (LC) the Labour Appeal Court made it clear that: “ when considering the nature of the proceedings per s 3 (1) (c) of the Evidence Act, which in this instance is an unfair dismissal action, this court should be alive to the fact that the medical certificates pertain to an expert evidence of the doctors who expressed a medical opinion on the applicant’s illness. Since they constitute opinion evidence, it cannot be given by laymen, but by the respective doctors who issued the medical certificates.”
70) The Law of Evidence Amendment Act requires the court to consider the reason why the medical evidence was not provided in the form of affidavits. No reason was given why no affidavits have been provided or at least why the medical doctor was not called upon to give oral evidence.
71) I find the medical certificates to be inadmissible evidence and the applicant to have been in wilful default of attending the disciplinary hearing.

Leaving the workplace without permission.

72) It became evident during the cause of an arbitration that the educator left the school on 26 March 2025. The only issue in dispute is with regard to times of departure. The educator did not challenge the employer’s version that he left the school without permission.
73) There was no justification for leaving the workplace without informing anyone or at least why he could not sign the departure register. He was seen by Netshiovhani driving out with a blue VW Pwolo. It could not be by chance that Netshiovhani will know the type of a vehicle he was driving. A reasonable possibility to be drawn is that he was at school and that he decided to leave in protest of being served with a notice to appear at the disciplinary hearing.
74) Even if it could be accepted that he was never at the school on that day, there was no reason provided why he could not inform any of the educators about his absence. If he was indeed absent on both days, he could have phoned the Principal or any of his colleagues to inform them about his absence.
75) It is not surprising that he could not bother to make an application for leave of absence because he knew that he was on duty on both occasions. When he reported back to work, he still did not explain to the Principal why he was not on duty on both days or at least account for the days he was absent.
76) It became evident that the educator is not the kind of a person who would confront issues head-on. He walked away and refused to acknowledge receipt of the formal complaint by the Principal during the meeting arranged by SADTU site. He did not answer his phone when the chairperson of the disciplinary enquiry phoned to remind him about the disciplinary hearing.
77) He refused to attend to the departmental officials when called by the School pPincipal. He still refused to attend to the departmental officials when called by his colleague. He refused to talk to the chairperson of the disciplinary hearing who gave him the last opportunity to explain his absence.

Mitigating factors.
78) Section 188 (1) of the LRA provides thhat a dismissal is unfair if it is not effected for a fair reason and in accordance with a fair procedure, even if it complies with the notice period in a contract of employment or in legislation governing employment. Whether or not a dismissal is for a fair reason is determined by the facts of the case, and appropriateness of dismissal as a penalty.
79) It is common cause that the applicant did not submit mitigating factors. The respondent’s defence is that it could not afford him an opportunity to do so because he was not in attendance. The employee who is not in attendance should generally be given an opportunity to submit mitigating factors, especially if they have a valid reason for their absence.
80) It is trite that the dismissal must be procedurally and substantively fair. It would have been procedurally fair for the respondent to have served the applicant with the findings. The respondent did not do so, but instead informed the applicant of its decision to dismiss.
81) There was no evidence that the applicant was served with the findings with a notice for him to submit mitigating factors. The fact that the applicant was in wilful default did not give a licence to the employer to dispense with the most important procedural requirement. However, even if the applicant was given an opportunity to mitigate, the picture would not have changed. He had an opportunity to state his case during an arbitration process. I find the procedural flaw to be so minor that it did not warrant a remedy in favour of the applicant.
Substantive fairness.
82) The next issue to be determined is whether or not there was a fair reason for dismissing the employee.
83) Section 17 of the Employment of Educators Act provides:
“Serious misconduct
An educator must be dismissed if he or she is found guilty of-
(a) Theft, bribery, fraud or an act of corruption in regard to examination or promotional reports;
(b) Committing an act of sexual assault on a learner, student or other employee;
(c) Having a sexual relationship with a learner of the school where he or she is employed;
(d) Seriously assaulting, with the intention to cause grievous bodily harm to a leaner, student or other employee;
(e) Illegal possession of intoxicating, illegal or stupefying substance;
or
(f) Causing a learner or student to perform any of the acts contemplated in paragraphs (a) to (e).
84) Section 188(2) of the LRA requires of the decision maker who considers whether or not the reason for dismissal is a fair reason or whether or not dismissal was effected in accordance with a fair procedure and to take into account any relevant Code of Good Practice issued in terms of Schedule 8 of the Labour Relations Act.
85) It is evident from the obvious reading of section 17 referred to above that the applicant did not commit any of the serious acts of misconduct referred to above. It was not the respondent’s case that the applicant seriously assaulted the learners with intention to cause grievous bodily harm. It can correctly be argued that the applicant committed common assault which is not categorised as the most serious form of misconduct which must warrant a dismissal.
86) It is in the converse, an accepted view that each case should be dealt with on its own merits.

Threatening the school principal.

87) The applicant did not provide the basis upon which he denied threatening the School Principal, or at least why she would wrongfully implicate him. I find his reference to the R & R process to be neither here nor there because at the time of commission of the offences, the process had not yet started. If the threats were not made, the School Principal would not have reported the incident to SADTU officials and the police.
88) There was enough evidence that the learners were indeed assaulted. If the threats were frivolous, the police would not have detained the applicant.

Assaulting learners.

89) The employee agreed during cross examination that he was not remorseful for what he did. The manner in which the educator disclosed his defence with regard to assault leaves much to be desired. The educator ought to have disclosed some factual basis for his denial.
90) He did not put to the employer’s witnesses that the learner had no visible marks of finger prints on his face. The fact that he only denied seeing visible marks during his evidence in chief, can only be attributed to the fact that he knew and appreciated the fact that he was the assailant.
91) The problem I have with the employee’s version where it differs from that of the learners is that it was not put to those witnesses while they were still testifying. Most of the respondent’s witnesses confirmed seeing visible marks on the learner’s face. He did not challenge existence of the fingerprint marks. He did not deny admitting to Marivha that he had assaulted the learner.
92) He should at least have disclosed what his discussion with Mariba entailed. I find it not to be reasonably probable that Marivha would just grab the learner and placed him on the front desk without saying anything to him as the person who was in charge of the class at that point in time.
93) It will be grossly unfair and improper to let a witness’s evidence go unchallenged in cross-examination and afterwards argue that he/she must be disbelieved.
94) He assaulted the two learners on different occasions. There was no justification provided for him to have done so.

Failure to submit scripts.
95) It was evident that the applicant did not submit the scripts to either his Head of Department or the School Principal. There was no basis for him not to have done so. He attributed his failures to the School Principal and the HOD. He had been grossly dishonest in the manner he had handled the issue of scripts, especially when implicating the principal and the HOD for refusing to take the scripts. It is unheard of that an educator would just mark the scripts and hand them over to the principal without processing the mark sheet.
96) Despite having been requested by the Circuit office to submit the scripts to the circuit office, he still failed to do so on time. The scripts were sent to the circuit office, raw as they were without the mark sheet having been attended to by the applicant. He was in my view, grossly disobedient.
97) His conduct seriously jeopardized the administration of the department, something he should have avoided.

Insolent and abusive behaviour towards colleagues, displaying underwear and printing pictures of his girlfriends.
98) The applicant was a sole witness whose testimony should be approached with caution. The respondent had a lot of complaints against the applicant. Although the respondent could not provide conclusive proof that the applicant displayed his underwear at the workplace, the applicant’s version was just a bare denial.
99) He did not challenge the respondent’s version that he showed disrespect to the School Management Team (SMT) by saying “you do not have qualifications, you are nothing”.
100) Such statements do not provide a conducive environment for a harmonious work relationship, especially if uttered by someone who is in a subordinate position. It is worth to mention that the respondent’s evidence point to the fact that the applicant is occupying the seat of an incompatible employee in the employment, whose conduct seeks to disrupt the normal harmonious functioning of the school.
101) He did not deny printing pictures of girls and pasting them on a notice board. Neither did he deny that such pictures were found in his class. Common sense dictates that he is the only one who should explain how the pictures gained access into the class.
102) As an educator, he is expected to lead an exemplary life. Pasting pictures of that kind defeats the whole object of developing learners into responsible citizens.
103) The applicant did not challenge the principal’s evidence that he refused to sign the logbook when issued with a warning. Despite the said warning the applicant did not change his behaviour.

104) I find the applicant’s dismissal to be procedurally and substantively fair.

AWARD
105) The applicant’ dispute is hereby dismissed.