Panellist/s: Seretse Masete

Case No: ELRC262-26/27LP

Date of Award:  05/09/2026     

In the ARBITRATION between:

Masela Makwaza Ronny

(Union / Applicant)

  And

Education Department of Limpopo

(Respondent)

Union/Applicant’s representative: Patricia Mathladisa/Malose Setiba
Union/Applicant’s address:
Telephone:
Cell:

Respondent’s representative: Nthabiseng

Respondent’s address:
Telephone:
Cell:

Particulars of the proceedings and representation.

1. The matter was held on 21 August 2026 at the employer’s premises in Lebowakgomo.
2. Masela Makwaza Ronny (employee) was represented by Patricia Mathladisa during the postponement application and Malose Setiba during the main dispute, both are union officials from PSA, while the Education Department of Limpopo, (employer), was represented by Nthabiseng Rasebotsa.
3. The proceedings were in English, interpreted into Sepedi by Mpho Mosomane and digitally voice recorded while Mercy R Kupa was an intermediary.

Issues to be determined.

4. Whether or not the suspension of the employee was substantively fair.

Background and Nature of the dispute

5. The employee was employed on 01 November 2006 as a teacher at Elandskraal Primary School within Tsimanyana Circuit, earning R30,939-00 per month at the time of the dispute.
6. The employer subjected him to a disciplinary hearing, found him guilty and suspended him for three months without salary from 01 August 2026 to 31 October 2026.
7. He was charged to have contravened s18 (1)(a) of the EEA by applying corporal punishment against a learner.
8. He challenged the substantive fairness of the suspension and sought the suspension to be set aside.
9. The employer submitted that the sanction was fair as the misconduct was proved and corroborated by witnesses.
10. The employer submitted one bundle of documents marked R (the bundle) an audio, and called six witnesses. The employee testified as a sole witness and submitted no bundle of documents.

The employee applied for postponement.

11. The applicant representative, Patricia Mathladisa, submitted that the employee requested assistance from PSA at the time when she was going on leave from 26 June to 21st July 2026. She then assisted the employee during conciliation. The employee surprisingly requested arbitration without involving the union. She was only informed on the day of the hearing about the arbitration, hence she even came late to the hearing. She therefore was not prepared for the case. After conciliation, the employee was requested to send all the documents of the hearing to peruse them, but he only sent them on 30 June 2026, when she was already on leave. She only came back on 21 July 2026 and therefore could not prepare. The agreement with the employer and the commissioner during conciliation was that they would have a pre-arb on 21 July 2026 . She was already committed in a disciplinary hearing in the National Department of Public works, which she requested parties to stand it down for some few minutes to come and ask for postponement. She did not consult with the employee on the matter. It would therefore be difficult to put the employee on the stand. The witness of the employee was also not present.

Response by the employer.

12. The employer representative, Nthabiseng Rasebotsa, submitted that the employer received the set down on 8th June 2026 and conciliation took place on 25 June 2026. They had to wait for the school to open in order to go and investigate the matter. They were, however, prepared to continue with the matter. Documents were not exchanged due to the fact that schools only opened on 21 July 2026. However, in terms of the fairness, because the employee may not have a representative, they would not oppose the application of the postponement. Ruling.
13. The employee party had ample time to prepare for the case and to choose a particular union representative to represent him. The set down was received by both parties on 08 June 2026 which means that the parties had about 14 days to prepare and or apply for postponement. The employee party did not comply with any of the subrules in rule 23 of the ELRC rules for the proceedings. There was no prior written agreement and notification of the other party (employer), and the seven days rule was not complied with.
14. I therefore, based on the above, reasons reject the application for postponement, otherwise the employee party shall be liable for the costs.
15. After issuing the ruling, the employee party requested an adjournment to study the documents and to prepare the witnesses accordingly and we proceeded with the matter at about 13h00.
    Common cause issues. The employee was subjected to a disciplinary hearing. The employee was suspended for three months without pay. He appealed the sanction but it was rejected.
    Disputed issues. The employee did not beat the learner.

Employee’s evidence.
Makwaza Ronny Masela testified under oath as follows;
16. He denied assaulting or physically punishing the learner. He testified that on the day in question he checked learners’ homework and instructed those who had not completed it to stand in front while he warned them. He maintained that the learner was never injured or assaulted by him.
17. He alleged that the learner’s mother was attempting to extort money from him and had threatened to report him to the media, mobilise the community against him and cause him to lose his employment. He paid her R700-00 on 30 August 2024 under duress, comprising amounts allegedly requested for transport and repayment of a loan. He subsequently opened an extortion case against her. He denied that the payment constituted an admission of wrongdoing or an agreement to compensate the family. The employee disputed the authenticity and relevance of the photographs and medical evidence relied upon by the employer. He denied that the piece of metal allegedly removed from the learner’s forehead came from his ring, maintaining that his ring remained intact. He also disputed that the photographs depicting bleeding and injury were of the learner and pointed out that the alleged incident occurred in April 2024, whereas the learner only consulted a doctor in August 2024. He further questioned the medical description of the object as a piece of bone rather than wire or metal. Regarding the recordings, he denied instructing colleagues to apologise to the learner’s family. He stated that he sent Shavane and Makgopa to establish whether the learner had in fact been injured and to conduct a fact-finding exercise. He maintained that they were not sent to apologise.
18. He later visited the family himself, including on 30 August 2024, and stated that during one of the visits the mother demanded R20,000-00 and R2,000-00 per month. The employee described the learner as ill-disciplined and non-compliant, stating that he had previously refused to do schoolwork and had failed Grade 5 because of poor discipline. He maintained that he was responsible for disciplining learners and agreed that he acted in loco parentis. He, however, denied that he assaulted the learners. He explained that the expression “molamo wa tshipi” referred to a stick kept in his office and used to control learners during feeding time, and not by his fist. He denied using his fist to strike learners on the forehead. He also denied apologising to the parents because, according to him, he had not assaulted the learner. He alleged that the principal was protecting other educators who also assaulted learners and denied that assault was a common practice in his class. When it was put to him that other learners would testify about the assaults, he repeatedly indicated that he had no objection to them testifying, while suggesting that learners had been trained to lie. He maintained that the learner suffered no lasting incapacity and continued to play normally. He also disputed the alleged lump and scar and maintained that the medical and photographic evidence did not establish that the learner had been injured by him.
19. Finally, the employee testified that he had requested the doctor to testify but that the employer or department refused to subpoena the doctor. He maintained that the police did not prosecute the matter because there were doubts about the allegations and alleged that both the police and the learner’s mother were attempting to extort him. He said that his concern about the allegations was also motivated by his desire to protect his reputation and future business interests.

Evidence by the employer party.
1st witness, Nthwaleng Bridget Seroka (the principal), testified under oath as follows:
20. Nthwaleng Bridget Seroka, the principal of Elandskraal Primary School, testified that the learner’s mother reported the alleged assault to her on 22 July 2024, explaining that the delay was because she (the mother) had recently given birth. The mother reported that the learner had a swollen forehead after being struck with “molamo wa tshipi”, which she understood to mean a fist wearing a ring. The principal questioned the learner and other learners in the class, who confirmed that the employee had assaulted the learner together with other learners. The principal testified that the employee denied assaulting the learner but acknowledged that the learner had a lump on his forehead. The employee indicated that he would contact the learner’s parents. The parents subsequently came to the school, and the principal attempted to facilitate a meeting between them and the employee. The employee refused to have the meeting in the principal’s office, stating that he had called the parents himself. The mother later returned and complained that the employee had failed to take the learner to hospital.
21. The employee denied having agreed to take the learner to hospital, although he indicated that he would consider doing so. The principal further testified that the matter was eventually discussed with the police and the parents, following which an arrangement was made for the employee to take the learner to hospital. The mother subsequently produced the medical letter contained on page 21 of the bundle. The employee disputed that the letter proved that he had assaulted the learner. The principal thereafter reported the matter to the circuit office. According to the principal, the learner continued experiencing headaches, regularly asked to go home and sometimes stayed away from school because of the headaches. The mother also made further complaints that the employee was emotionally abusing the learner by calling him a liar and humiliating him in front of other learners. She testified that the employee would allegedly tell the learner to sit down, calling him “wena ramaaka” (liar), causing the other learners to laugh at him. The principal also testified that the employee sent Shavane and Makgopa/Maruma to the learner’s home. According to what the mother reported to her, the two were sent to apologise on the employee’s behalf for assaulting the learner. The principal did not personally discuss this with the employee.
22. Under cross-examination, the principal acknowledged that her relationship with the employee was not good and described him as troublesome. She testified that she was aware of other incidents involving corporal punishment at the school and had reported some of them to the circuit. However, some incidents were resolved directly between parents and educators and were not formally reported. She also testified that the employee had previously assaulted another learner with a pipe, but the parent forgave him after the employee acknowledged that he had made a mistake. The principal denied selectively reporting incidents involving the employee and maintained that she did not regard the learner as a bad learner. She considered the photograph in the bundle to depict the learner’s injury and believed the object shown was consistent with a ring used when the learner was struck. She could not explain the medical reference to a piece of bone or say when the lump had burst. The principal further testified that the employee was generally uncooperative and would sometimes inform her that he was going on leave without seeking permission. In re-examination, she clarified that the learner’s mother was not the only SGB-employed food handler and that she had also reported another learner’s matter to the circuit, although in that instance the parents only wanted the learner to taken to hospital.

2nd Witness, Makgopa Yvonne, testified under oath as follows:
23. She was an educator at Elandskraal Primary School and a colleague of the employee for approximately 13 years. The employee contacted her and requested that she and Shavane visit the Baloyi family. She understood that they were to apologise for the alleged assault of the learner and inform the family that the employee would pay the learner’s treatment and hospital expenses. She testified that she and Shavane went to the family’s home, but the parents indicated that the employee should come personally. They returned to the school and reported this to the employee, who simply responded “okay.” She did not know whether the employee subsequently visited the family himself. During their visit, the learner’s parents called other family members to join them.
24. She further stated that she had known the learner since Grade 1 and regarded him as a mischievous, noisy and troublesome child. She testified that she had never observed any injury or anything unusual on his body and would have been surprised to learn that he had been injured as a result of an assault by the employee. She described the employee as a good educator and said there was no adverse relationship between them. She explained that the employee told her that there was an allegation that he had assaulted a learner and asked them to go and check on the learner. He did not expressly admit to her that he had assaulted the learner. When they arrived at the family’s home, she observed the learner playing in the street. She described the mother as particularly vocal during the encounter. Overall, her evidence was that she did not personally observe any injury to the learner and had no independent knowledge that the employee had assaulted him. At the same time, she understood the employee’s instruction to include an apology for the alleged assault, and she inferred that he may have sent them because he believed he had made a mistake.

3rd witness, learner A, testified under affirmation as follows;
25. Learner A testified that on the day in question he had not completed his homework. He stated that the employee, Mr Masela, hit him with a fist above the nose, between the eyes. He was not the only learner who had failed to do the homework, estimating that approximately eight learners were affected. He testified that he experienced pain after being struck and that his mother noticed an injury on his face. He told his mother that the employee had assaulted him. He was subsequently taken to hospital, where an X-ray revealed a metal splinter lodged in the wound, which was removed by a doctor. According to him, his condition improved after the splinter was removed, particularly the headaches he had been experiencing. He further testified that he suffered intermittent headaches and pain, sometimes to the extent that he would not attend school. He also stated that he bled and identified the photograph on page 16 of the bundle as depicting his injury. He said the photograph was taken by his father after he returned from hospital.
26. He understood “molamo wa tshipi” to mean a fist wearing a ring. He stated that he had not previously been assaulted by the employee and that the employee did not assault him again after the incident. Regarding the visits to his home, he testified that Makgopa and Shavane initially came without the employee. On another occasion, the employee accompanied them. The employee subsequently visited his home twice, though he did not know the purpose of the visits. He could not recall the exact number of learners who had not completed their homework, may be 8, the date or name of the doctor who treated him, or the exact date of the hospital visit. He testified that he did not initially notice the wound himself; his mother noticed it. He experienced pain after school on that day and occasional headaches thereafter.
4th witness, Learner B, testified under affirmation as follows;

27. He was a friend to learner A. One day they did not write a home work and they were about three in number. Learner A was the most assaulted one on his face. It was the employee who assaulted learner A with a fist above the learner’s nose between the eyes. “Molamo was thsipi” (iron fist) was a fist. Learner A told them that he experienced some headaches and he occasionally touched his wound.
28. It was not for the first time for learner A not to do homework, it was only one homework learner A did not write. He and the others were also beaten on the face. He did not see blood or the cut on learner A. He however saw a round lump on learner A’s face. He did not walk with learner A when going home on that day. Learner A was in pain because he was crying.

5th witness, Lerato Violet Baloyi, testified under oath as follows;
29. She was the mother of Learner A. Her child returned from school with a wound on his face and told her that the employee had assaulted him for failing to complete his homework. She initially believed the injury would heal with time, but after reporting the matter to the principal, she met with the employee. According to her, the employee explained that was reprimanding the learners because they were sometimes troublesome and indicated that he would contact her regarding taking the learner to hospital. He also asked about the hospital costs. She testified that the employee did not fulfil that undertaking, prompting her to report the matter to SAPS and take the learner to hospital herself. The medical documentation was subsequently submitted to the school. She stated that the employee later sent Shavane and Makgopa to her home to apologise and indicate that he would assist with the medical expenses.
30. The family requested that the employee should come personally, after which he came with Shavane and agreed to reimburse the R700-00 she had incurred for the learner’s hospital treatment. She testified that the employee subsequently paid the R700-00 into her account. She regarded the payment as an acknowledgment of responsibility, although the employee disputed that. She further testified that the employee had requested her banking details and had initially been reluctant to sign a letter concerning the payment and medical expenses. She went on to say that the learner was taken for an X-ray and that the family was informed that there was a problem with his nose bone. The wound subsequently became swollen and discharged fluid. When the learner was taken back to hospital and the wound was cleaned, a metal splinter/foreign object came out, after which the learner’s pain improved. She identified the photograph on page 17 as the object removed from the learner and the photograph on page 16 as depicting the learner’s injury. She testified that the learner suffered recurrent headaches, sometimes causing him to miss school, but improved after removal of the foreign object.
31. She further testified that the employee visited the family on two occasions. The first related to reimbursement of the medical expenses, while the second was at her grandmother’s home, where he asked what amount he could pay to ameliorate the pain and resolve the matter. She proposed R20,000, but he indicated that he needed to consult his family. She denied that she was motivated by a desire to have the employee dismissed and cited that she would not have withdrawn the matter even if he had paid the R20,000. Regarding the alleged extortion, Baloyi acknowledged that she had been charged with extortion but denied that she had demanded the R700-00 or that she had threatened the employee pay it.
32. She maintained that the R700-00 was offered by the employee as reimbursement for the medical expenses. She also indicated that the threat to approach Thobela FM arose only after the employee was reluctant to sign an undertaking concerning the learner’s medical expenses. She disputed the employee’s version that he was the victim of extortion and maintained that the community was angry about his conduct. She also said that she did not know why the employee was not arrested or why the criminal matter did not proceed, but remained certain that the employee had assaulted the learner. Importantly, she testified that during their initial meeting the employee verbally acknowledged that he had assaulted the learner. She maintained that version under cross-examination, and the evidence indicates that this particular assertion was not challenged.
Analysis of the evidence and arguments
33. The misconduct levelled against the employee was about breaking a rule in terms of section 18(1)(a) of the Employment of Educators Act 76 of 1998(EEA), as amended, which reads; fails to comply with or contravenes this Act or any other statute obligation relating to education and the employment relationship.… Paragraph 7 of schedule 8 (code of good practice) (the code) in the Act, provides that any person who is determining whether a dismissal for misconduct is unfair must consider whether there was a valid/fair rule contravened by the employee. It further provides that the rule must be known or expected to have been known by the employee. The rule must be applied consistently, and the sanction must be commensurate with the offense(paraphrased). This was echoed in Woolworths (Pty) Ltd V SACCAWU and others (JA 56/2016[2017] ZALAC 54.
Section 10(1) of the South African Schools Act (SASA) 84 of 1996, provides that; no person may administer corporal punishment to a learner at a school. Subsection (2) provides that anyone who breaks this rule is guilty of an offence.
34. The central issue in this matter is whether the employee physically assaulted Learner A by striking him on the forehead/above the nose after he had failed to complete his homework. The employee gave a complete denial during his testimony in chief but never put a version to learner A and learner B to deny their testimony. He stated that the learners who had not completed their homework were merely instructed to stand in front of the class and were warned. He denied striking Learner A, denied that the injury depicted in the photographs was caused by him, and disputed the medical evidence. All those denials were only made during his evidence in chief and during cross questioning, but he never challenged the learner A and learner B during their testimony. His version, however, has to be considered against the evidence of Learner A himself. Learner A gave a direct account that the employee struck him with a fist between the eyes because he had not completed his homework, this version was not challenged by the employee as indicated above. He (learner A)described experiencing pain, bleeding and subsequent headaches. More importantly, he testified that he was taken to hospital where an X-ray revealed a foreign object lodged in the wound, which was removed by a doctor, after which his headaches improved. Learner A’s evidence received material corroboration from Learner B, who testified that the employee assaulted Learner A on the face with a fist and that Learner A was the most severely assaulted of the learners who had not done their homework. Learner B also observed a round lump on Learner A’s face and testified that Learner A was crying and appeared to be in pain. Those core facts were not materially contradicted otherwise.
35. The evidence of Lerato Baloyi, Learner A’s mother, was also significant. She testified that the child returned from school with an injury and told her that the employee had assaulted him for failing to complete his homework. She subsequently took him to hospital, where an X-ray was performed and a foreign object was removed from the wound. She also testified to the child’s recurring headaches and improvement after the object was removed. There was a particularly important aspect of Baloyi’s evidence which strengthens the employer’s case. She testified that during her initial meeting with the employee, he verbally acknowledged that he had assaulted the learner. She maintained this version under cross-examination, and, importantly, this assertion was not challenged. The employee’s subsequent conduct is also inconsistent with an innocent person who had simply been falsely accused. He sent Makgopa and Shavane to the family. Makgopa confirmed that she and Shavane went to the family after being contacted by the employee and understood that they were to apologise concerning the alleged assault and inform the family that the employee would assist with medical expenses.
36. Although Makgopa did not personally witness the assault, her evidence is relevant as circumstantial evidence of the employee’s reaction after the allegation was made. The fact that he sent colleagues to the family and thereafter paid R700-00 towards the medical expenses is difficult to reconcile with an unequivocal position that nothing had happened. The employee says that the payment was made under duress because of extortion. That explanation cannot simply be rejected, but it must be weighed against the evidence of the mother that the payment was made as reimbursement of medical expenses. The fact that the employee later paid R700-00 does not, by itself, constitute an admission of assault, however, if innocent, instead of succumbing to the allegations, one should not be scared to defend his innocence, the truth always comes out. The failure of the criminal prosecution does not establish the employee’s innocence. A criminal prosecution requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, whereas this arbitration requires proof on a balance of probabilities. The employee also placed considerable reliance on the alleged delay between the incident and the medical examination which is a relevant concern, but it is not decisive. The learner’s evidence was that his mother initially expected the injury to heal, and the mother gave an explanation for the delay in reporting the matter to the principal. The medical evidence and the existence of the foreign object therefore cannot simply be disregarded merely because the medical consultation did not immediately follow the incident.
37. There were some minor discrepancies in the evidence of the employer’s witnesses anyway. For example, the witnesses differed concerning the precise meaning of “molamo wa tshipi”, the nature of the object removed from the wound, the precise circumstances in which the employee’s colleagues visited the family, the good or sour relationship with the principal and other educators and the person who took the picture, which were also flagged by the employee in his closing arguments. Those discrepancies do not, in my view, affect the central issue and therefore immaterial. A child cannot be expected to remember everything, I mean even a teacher may not remember everything, see CS and another v Swanepoel and others19027/13 [2022] ZAWCHC 37[2022] 2 ALL SA 810(wcc);[2022] 7BLLR 660 (WCC). The likely hood that the learner’s version is true, outweighs those minor discrepancies and the version of the employee. Learner A and Learner B’s evidence, in terms of the central issue (assault) was solid despite those minor discrepancies.
38. The evidence must be assessed holistically, rather than witness by witness in isolation. The probabilities favour the employer because there is: the direct evidence of Learner A that the employee hit him; corroboration by Learner B that the employee hit Learner A on the face; the immediate report by Learner A to his mother; the physical injury observed by the mother; the medical treatment and removal of a foreign object from the injury; the evidence concerning the employee’s subsequent involvement with the family; the employee’s payment of the medical expenses; and most importantly, the mother’s evidence that the employee acknowledged the assault during their initial meeting, which was not challenged. Against this, stands principally the employee’s denial and his allegation that the matter was fabricated as part of an extortion attempt. I therefore find the employee’s version less probable than that of the employer witnesses. The employee on the balance of probabilities, breached a valid rule which he knew or expected to have known. There was no material evidence to substantiate that the rule was not consistently applied except just to mention that the principal protected other teachers who also assaulted learners, which was not substantiated with material evidence..
39. The legal position concerning corporal punishment and assault of learners is particularly clear. In MEC for Education Department: Limpopo v Sebetha (JA39/2006)[2008] ZALAC 20; the Labour Appeal Court dealt with an educator who administered corporal punishment to a six-year-old learner. The Court emphasised the seriousness of assaulting a learner and held that, even where the assault does not amount to assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm, dismissal may nevertheless be justified. The Court stressed the serious violation of the child’s rights and the importance of the constitutional protection afforded to children. The principle was subsequently strongly reaffirmed in Western Cape Education Department v Baatjies and Others(CA9/2020) [2022] ZALAC 89; (2022) [2022] 6 BLLR 537 (LAC). 43 ILJ 1353 (LAC); The Labour Appeal Court held that the statutory prohibition against corporal punishment, the best interests of the child, the seriousness of assaulting a learner and the employee’s lack of remorse are important considerations when determining an appropriate sanction. In that case the Court specifically accepted that even a long and previously unblemished service record did not necessarily outweigh the seriousness of assaulting a learner. Similarly, in PSA obo Moloisane v Department of Education and Sports Development North West and Others [2019] ZALCJHB 265; [2020] 1 BLLR 67 (LC), the Labour Court dealt with a principal who had been found guilty of administering corporal punishment to learners and confirmed the seriousness with which such conduct must be approached. There is, however, an important qualification. The fact that an allegation concerns an educator and a learner does not relieve the employer of the obligation to prove the misconduct. Abrahams v Education Labour Relations Council and Others [2026] ZALCCT 11 illustrated that; where the evidence concerning an alleged assault is contradictory and inadequately corroborated, a finding of guilt may be unsustainable. That distinction is important here. In my assessment, the present case is not one based on a single uncorroborated allegation. There is sufficient mutually corroborative evidence and circumstantial evidence to establish the assault on a balance of probabilities. The employee’s assaulting of a learner, amounted to an improper and unacceptable conduct as contemplated in s18(1)(q) of the EE Act, see Diholo v Gauteng department of education and Others (JR1775/19[2023] ZALCJHB 117 (2 May 2023) in that regard. Although the case was about sexual misconduct, the principle is the same. The employee failed to live up to the principle of “loco parentis” which he acknowledged to have been aware of.
40. I accordingly find that the employer has discharged the onus of proving that the employee assaulted Learner A by hitting him in the face/forehead after the learner failed to complete his homework. The employee’s contention that he merely instructed the learners to stand and warned them is rejected as not reasonably probable when measured against the totality of the evidence. I further find that the conduct constitutes unlawful corporal punishment and assault of a learner, and that it constitutes serious misconduct. The fact that the learner had failed to do his homework, or that he may have been troublesome or ill-disciplined, provides no justification for the use of physical violence. The statutory and constitutional framework does not permit an educator to resort to physical punishment as a disciplinary method. The evidence regarding the injury, including the removal of the foreign object and the headaches experienced by the learner, aggravated the misconduct.

Award

41. The suspension of the employee by the employer was both procedurally and substantively fair.
42. The employee’s case is dismissed.
43. This findings must also be referred to the South African Council for Educators (SACE) to determine whether or not the employee has breached its code of ethics which would determine the employee’s suitability to work with children in terms of s120(1)(c) of the children Act 38 of 2005.
44. No order as to costs.

Seretse Masete