IN THE ELRC ARBITRATION BETWEEN:

Bernaard Skosana Applicant
and
The Department of Education: Gauteng Province Respondent

ARBITRATION AWARD

Case Number: ELRC411-23/24GP

Arbitration date: 29 February 2023, 8 and 9 April 2024, 14 & 15 May 2024,29 & 30 July 2024, 7 & 8 October 2024, 10 & 11 October 2024, 25 & 26 November 2024, 19 & 20 February 2025, 9 & 10 April 2025, 23 May 2025, 29 July 2025, 15 August 2025, 22 7 23 September 2025, 21 &28 October 2025, and 9 December 2025
DATE OF AWARD: 06 February 2026
ELRC Arbitrator: Pitsi Maitsha
Education Labour Relations Council
ELRC Building
261 West Avenue
Centurion
Tel: 012 663 0452
Fax: 012 643 1601
E-mail: gen.sec@elrc.co.za
Website: www.elrc.org.za

DETAILS OF THE HEARING AND REPRESENTATION

1. This matter has a long procedural history and was heard over numerous sitting days, including several postponement applications by both parties. The arbitration proceedings commenced in February 2024, and the final arbitration hearing was held on 9 December 2025. The arbitration was conducted under the auspices of the Education Labour Relations Council (ELRC) in terms of section 191(5)(a)(iv) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995, as amended (“the LRA”). This award is issued in terms of section 138(7) of the LRA.
2. The applicant is Mr Bernard Skosana, who was present and represented by Advocate Mphahlele. The respondent is the Gauteng Department of Education, represented by Mr John Marakalla, Assistant Director: Labour Relations. The parties presented evidence under oath. The proceedings were held at the Tshwane South District Office and were digitally recorded.
   ISSUE TO BE DECIDED
3. I am required to determine whether the dismissal of the applicant was substantively fair. If so, I must make an appropriate award.
   BACKGROUND
4. The parties held a pre-arbitration meeting on 5 February 2024 and recorded the following facts in the pre-arbitration minutes.
   COMMON CAUSE FACTS
5. The respondent employed the applicant on 27 January 1996. At the time of dismissal, the applicant had twenty-six (26) years of service and occupied the position of Chief Education Specialist (IDSO) (Cluster Leader). He earned a gross annual salary of R926 268.00 and was allocated to Laerskool Fleur.
6. The applicant was dismissed on 1 September 2023.
   FACTS IN DISPUTE
7. The following issues were placed in dispute:
   7.1 The existence and applicability of the allegedly contravened rules.
   7.2 Whether the applicant committed misconduct as alleged in Charges I and II;
   7.3 Whether the applicant used the school bakkie for personal purposes;
   7.4 Whether the applicant purchased a printer and earphones without authorisation from the School Governing Body (SGB).
8. The applicant denied all allegations.
9. Aggrieved by his dismissal, the applicant referred an unfair dismissal dispute to the ELRC and seeks reinstatement.
   THE RESPONDENT’S EVIDENCE
   EVIDENCE OF MR REUBEN RALEPHATA – CHIEF EDUCATION SPECIALIST
10. Mr Ralephata testified that he is employed by the Gauteng Department of Education within the Ordinary Public Schools Directorate and has been employed there since 2003. His core duties include, inter alia, serving as a provincial electoral officer responsible for matters relating to school governing bodies, the establishment and functionalisation of SGBs, training of SGBs and Representative Councils for Learners (RCLs), adjudication of learner misconduct matters, and school exemption appeals.
11. He testified that he knew the applicant, who was employed as an IDSO at the Tshwane District Office, and that he had interacted with him in a professional capacity. He stated that he bore no animosity towards the applicant and had no reason to fabricate evidence against him.
12. Mr Ralephata referred to a letter titled “Request to Investigate the Conduct of Mr Skosana”, addressed to Mr Patrick Selowa and signed by the Head of Department, Mr Edward Mosue. The letter mandated an investigation by the Public Ordinary Schools Directorate into allegations concerning the applicant at Laerskool Fleur. Paragraph 2 of the letter recorded that the investigation revealed, inter alia, that the applicant:

I. Appointed himself as caretaker principal at Laerskool Fleur following the acting principal’s resignation, without any formal appointment.
II. Used the school bakkie on several occasions under the pretext of acting as caretaker principal;
III. Used the bakkie without SGB authorisation to purchase cleaning materials from Makro Centurion;
IV. Purchased items not requested or approved by the school, namely a printer valued at R3 499.00 and earphones valued at R599.00;
V. Claimed that the earphones were stored in the school’s strong room, although they were never found.
VI. Brought his personal laptop to the school for alignment with the printer by the school’s IT technician; and
VII. Retained the newly purchased printer from May 2021 until 20 October 2021, returning it only when the matter had been reported to the Department.

13. He testified that Charge I against the applicant read as follows:
    “It is alleged that during the period 15 June 2021 to 21 June 2021, in your capacity as the Cluster Leader of Laerskool Fleur, you utilised a vehicle belonging to the school for your own personal use. You are accordingly charged in terms of section 18(1)(a) of the Employment of Educators Act 76 of 1998, as amended.”
14. Mr Ralephata testified that the Public Ordinary Schools Directorate received a complaint regarding the applicant’s conduct, including allegations that he was using the school bakkie under the guise of assisting the school. During the investigation, it emerged that the applicant’s private vehicle had broken down. The applicant indicated that he used the school vehicle to assist with recruitment activities. Mr Ralephata testified that such conduct was irregular, given the applicant’s position as an IDSO, and that the applicant ought to have reported the breakdown to his supervisors rather than approaching school officials directly.
15. He testified that during the period 15 June 2021 to 21 June 2021, the vehicle belonged to and remained the property of the school, yet it was in the possession of the applicant and was not parked at the school when not in use.
16. Mr Ralephata further testified that the applicant had a supervisor and a director responsible for ensuring that he was provided with appropriate tools of trade. By “tools of trade”, he referred to the means and resources provided by the employer to enable employees to perform their official duties.
17. He testified that Gauteng Department of Education policy prohibited the applicant from using a school vehicle.
18. He further testified that the vehicle was school property and that the involvement of a departmental official in using such property for personal purposes constituted a transgression.
19. He referred to section 37 of the South African Schools Act (SASA), which provides that all assets acquired by a public school are the property of the school and must be used solely for educational purposes or in connection with the school.
20. Mr Ralephata testified that while the vehicle was in the applicant’s possession, the school was unable to use it for its daily operational needs, including the collection and submission of departmental correspondence and the transportation of materials.
21. He testified that the applicant’s use of the vehicle for personal purposes was supported by entries in the school logbook.
22. He further testified that, instead of using the school bakkie, the applicant could have requested assistance from his supervisors to obtain an authorised GG vehicle, particularly given that his private vehicle was not fit for use.
23. He referred to clause 10 of the GG Vehicle Policy, which regulates the utilisation of GG vehicles and requires appropriate authorisation for their use, particularly for officials at MMS and SMS levels.
24. Mr Ralephata testified that the applicant required authorisation to use the school vehicle. He further testified that Laerskool Fleur is a fee-paying school and that the vehicle should have remained at the school when not in use, as it was purchased through funds contributed by parents for the proper functioning of the school.
25. He testified that the investigation established that the applicant had used the vehicle and retained possession of it for the stated period. The applicant confirmed during interactions with the investigation team that he used the vehicle and kept it with him while assisting the school.
26. Mr Ralephata testified that the logbook entries made by the applicant were incomplete and irregular. The applicant failed to record dates, provided unclear destinations and reasons for travel, and inconsistently recorded the name of the driver. Several kilometre readings were unaccounted for.
27. He testified that this conduct demonstrated an abuse of authority, as the SGB had never authorised the applicant to use the vehicle, yet he acted unilaterally.
28. He further testified that the applicant’s failure to properly complete the logbook appeared to be an attempt to obscure how and where the vehicle was used. The applicant had possession of the vehicle for a total of six days.
29. With regard to Charge II, Mr Ralephata testified that the allegation read as follows: “It is alleged that on or about 21 May 2021, in your capacity as Cluster Leader, you used the Makro card belonging to Laerskool Fleur to purchase goods for the school but additionally purchased a printer and earphones without authorisation. You are charged in terms of section 18(1)(a) of the Employment of Educators Act 76 of 1998, as amended.”
30. He testified that the applicant informed school administrators that the school was dirty and that cleaning materials were required. The applicant was provided with the school’s Makro card and a list of approved items. He added a printer and earphones to the purchase without authorisation. These items were not found at the school, despite appearing on the Makro invoice.
31. Mr Ralephata testified that, in terms of SASA, the SGB is responsible for the financial management of the school and that the applicant had no mandate to make purchases on behalf of the school. He testified that the purchase of a printer required quotations and approval, and that earphones were not a necessary school item.
32. He further testified that when he met with the applicant regarding the missing items, the applicant claimed they were stored in the school strong room and stated that he intended to use them during interviews and to align the printer to his personal laptop. The SGB secretary and treasurer confirmed that no approval had been granted for the purchase of these items.
33. Under cross-examination, Mr Ralephata testified that the school owned the vehicle and that the SGB chairperson did not have authority to grant permission unilaterally. He further testified that failure to return the vehicle to the school constituted personal use.
34. When it was put to him that the logbook entries were backdated, he denied this and testified that the applicant had signed the entries, and that each driver was required to sign for their own use of the vehicle.
35. When it was further put to him that the applicant would allege that he drove a general assistant who lacked a driver’s licence to Makro, Mr Ralephata testified that the applicant, as an IDSO, was senior to a general assistant and that the list of items had been provided to the applicant, who personally requested it. He testified that he could not comment on any alleged conversation between the applicant and the SGB chairperson regarding assistance when the principal declined to make the purchase.
    EVIDENCE OF MS PAULA GALEO – CHIEF DIRECTOR (FORMER DISTRICT DIRECTOR)
36. Ms Galeo testified that prior to her appointment as Chief Director, she served as the District Director for the Tshwane South District. The Tshwane region comprises four districts, namely Tshwane West, Tshwane North, Tshwane South, and Gauteng North. Her responsibilities included oversight of district operations, ensuring compliance with departmental policies, and facilitating service delivery to schools to enable effective teaching and learning.
37. She testified that she knew the applicant during her tenure as District Director, as he served as the Cluster Leader for Circuit One. She described their relationship as professional and stated that she had no reason to fabricate evidence against him.
38. Ms Galeo testified that the role of a Cluster Leader (IDSO) is to develop, monitor, and support schools within an allocated cluster.
39. She testified that head office notified the district of a complaint involving the applicant and the SGB chairperson at Laerskool Fleur, which prompted an investigation.
40. She testified that if the applicant utilised the school vehicle between 15 June 2021 and 21 June 2021 in his capacity as Cluster Leader, such conduct would have been unlawful. She testified that section 18 of the Employment of Educators Act prohibits the misuse of tools of trade belonging to the employer. According to her, the applicant was expected to use his own vehicle or officially allocated resources.
41. Under cross-examination, she testified that if the applicant experienced a vehicle breakdown enroute to the school, he was required to inform the employer and make alternative arrangements through official channels. She testified that it is standard practice for officials to report such incidents to their supervisors.
42. She testified that, although applications for GG vehicles may require approval, certain delegations of authority rest at district level, and emergency arrangements could have been made. She disagreed with the applicant’s contention that time constraints justified the use of the school vehicle.
43. Ms Galeo testified that school resources are protected under Chapter 4 of the South African Schools Act and that the vehicle was purchased to serve the needs of the school. She stated that the use of the school vehicle by a departmental official was unlawful.
44. She further testified that the applicant was not a member of the SGB, did not have a child at the school, and did not possess authority over school assets.
    EVIDENCE OF MS MARTJIE VAN DER WALT – FORMER CIRCUIT TEAM MANAGER
45. Ms Van der Walt testified that she was employed by the Gauteng Department of Education until 31 December 2021 and had forty-two (42) years of service. Her responsibilities included providing professional leadership, supporting schools, managing resources, overseeing admissions processes, ensuring compliance with departmental policies, and coordinating district-level initiatives.
46. She testified that three cluster leaders reported to her, including the applicant, who was responsible for Cluster II. She confirmed that she had a professional relationship with the applicant and no reason to fabricate evidence.
47. Regarding Charge I, she testified that she attended a meeting at Laerskool Fleur convened by a Labour Relations Officer from Head Office, Ms Goodness Zwane, during an investigation into allegations that the applicant had used the school bakkie for personal purposes.
48. She testified that she was not informed by the applicant—whether by email, SMS, WhatsApp, or telephone—that he had experienced problems with his vehicle. No such difficulties were recorded in his weekly plans or reports.
49. Ms Van der Walt testified that the applicant submitted a weekly plan indicating his intended activities for the week of 14 June 2021, including visits to various schools and participation in interviews. In the section titled “Challenges and Support”, the applicant recorded “none” and signed the report.
50. She testified that the logbook requires drivers to record the date, opening and closing kilometre readings, driver’s name, destination, purpose, and signature. She stated that the applicant failed to complete these fields correctly and that the destinations recorded did not align with his weekly plans.
51. She testified that the vehicle was purchased by the school for school operations. While the vehicle was not at the school, the school incurred additional costs and operational challenges, including the need to use private vehicles for departmental submissions.
52. She further testified that the applicant was not formally appointed as caretaker principal, as no letter to that effect was issued by the district.
53. With regard to Charge II, she testified that the SGB manages school finances in terms of section 21(c) of SASA. Purchases must be approved by the finance committee and minuted, and there was no approval for the purchase of a printer or earphones.
54. Under cross-examination, she testified that although the policy governing vehicle usage was approved in 2022, similar policies and procedures existed prior to that date and the standard requirement to seek authorisation and alternatives remained unchanged.
    EVIDENCE OF MS NTHABISENG NKOSI – FORMER SGB TREASURER
55. Ms Nkosi testified that she is an SGB member in the parent component and was elected treasurer in 2019. Her responsibilities included oversight of financial reports, budgeting, and participation in the finance committee.
56. She testified that she knew the applicant in his capacity as Cluster Leader at the school.
57. Regarding Charge I, she testified that the applicant had possession of the school bakkie from 15 June 2021 to 21 June 2021. She stated that there were no minutes or resolutions authorising the applicant to use the vehicle.
58. She testified that the bakkie was purchased for school purposes and that its absence adversely affected school operations, resulting in additional costs incurred by the school to hire transport.
59. Ms Nkosi testified that Ms Viljoen was the designated driver of the school bakkie and that she recognised the vehicle driven by the applicant by its registration number.
60. She testified that while the applicant may have required the vehicle for shortlisting on 15 June 2021, there was no authorisation for its continued use thereafter, resulting in six days of unaccounted usage.
61. She testified that the logbook entries made by the applicant were irregular and non-compliant. Approximately 400 kilometres were unaccounted for, which she regarded as unethical and concerning.
62. She further testified that during the period in question, the applicant was unreachable and the school did not know where the vehicle was kept.
63. Ms Nkosi testified that the tax invoice dated 28 May 2021 reflected the purchase of items such as a printer, chair, and earphones, which did not fall within routine cleaning materials or stationery and were not approved by the SGB.
64. She testified that in terms of SASA, school assets must be used solely for educational purposes and that the applicant, as a departmental employee, had no authority to appropriate school resources for his duties.
    THE EVIDENCE OF THE APPLICANT
    EVIDENCE OF MR BERNARD SKOSANA
65. The applicant testified that he was the Cluster Leader for Cluster One, which covered Centurion schools and Hennops Park. Laerskool Fleur was initially part of Cluster One but was later moved to another cluster under Mr Nkadimeng, who was allocated to the school later in 2021. At the relevant time, the principal of Laerskool Fleur was Mr I.P. Padayachee.
66. He testified that during 2021, the Department introduced an early retirement option for employees aged fifty-five (55) years and older. Mr Padayachee initially indicated that he would retire at the end of December 2021, but approval was later granted for retirement at the end of March 2021. The applicant testified that, as the IDSO, he was responsible for ensuring that proper handover processes were followed when the principal exited.
67. The applicant testified that in January 2021, the school had one deputy principal. The circuit required the deputy principal to act at Laudium Primary School. Ms Annet, who was a Head of Department, was appointed as Acting Deputy Principal from 1 April 2021. By virtue of her position, she was also a member of the SGB. He testified that following Ms Annet’s resignation, Mr Jacob returned to Laerskool Fleur and acted in a management capacity.
    EVIDENCE RELATING TO CHARGE II: PURCHASE OF ITEMS USING THE MAKRO CARD
68. The applicant testified that he raised concerns about the unhygienic condition of the school, including sanitation and cleanliness. He instructed Ms Annet that the cleaning of classrooms and school premises could not be compromised and that the matter needed to be communicated to the SGB chairperson.
69. He testified that a list of required items was drafted. On a Friday in May 2021, the Acting Principal informed him that there was no one available to purchase the items. Sipho, a general assistant, was willing to go but did not have a driver’s licence. The SGB chairperson requested the applicant to assist, and he agreed.
70. The applicant testified that he travelled to Makro with Sipho and Ms Hilda, an administrative assistant. He drove the school bakkie because Sipho did not have a driver’s licence. At Makro, Ms Hilda selected a chair that was consistent with the price range of similar chairs at the school, while Sipho selected the cleaning materials. The items were purchased and transported back to the school.
71. He testified that on arrival at the school, no one was present. He parked and locked the bakkie in the school parking area and retained the key, as he did not want to leave it with Sipho, who resided behind the school premises.
72. The applicant further testified that on the following day the SMT and SGB attended training at Royal Elephant. During preparations for the training, quotations for printing were obtained and found to be expensive. The school sought his advice because it did not have a printer.
73. He testified that on Saturday, 22 May 2021, files prepared for the SMT and SGB members were mistakenly left on top of the bakkie at the school. He alerted Mr Padayachee, and they returned to the school to retrieve the files and transported them to Royal Elephant. He testified that the items purchased from Makro remained in the bakkie at the school and were later taken to Royal Elephant for verification against the list.
74. The applicant testified that the printer used at Royal Elephant was the one purchased from Makro and did not belong to the venue. He stated that the items purchased were later handed over to Ms Annet, who checked them against the list by marking each item. The only discrepancies noted were an extra broom and mop, which were to be returned to Makro. The earphones, printer, tea, and coffee were present.
75. He testified that he left after handing over the items and instructed the staff to proceed with cleaning. The finance officer was not present at the time.
76. The applicant testified that Ms Annet had informed him that she was awaiting SGB approval and that his understanding was that the shopping list had been approved by the SGB chairperson. He stated that he was only aware of the cleaning materials and chair before arriving at Makro, and only noticed the printer and earphones on the list while shopping. Ms Annet did not indicate that these items were unauthorised.
77. He testified that the Makro system required presentation of Ms Annet’s identification and the Makro card, after which the cashier contacted a supervisor who verified telephonically with Ms Annet that the purchase was authorised. Based on this process, the applicant believed that the transaction was properly authorised.
78. He testified that he never removed the printer for personal use and had his own printer. He only became aware of allegations that the printer was missing during the investigation in 2022. None of the acting principals raised any concerns with him before that. He testified that Mr Mudau later returned the printer after the interviews.
    EVIDENCE RELATING TO CHARGE I: USE OF THE SCHOOL VEHICLE
79. The applicant testified that on 15 June 2021, the day of shortlisting, he experienced a mechanical breakdown with his private vehicle while travelling from Pretoria North. He contacted the SGB chairperson to report the problem. After consultation with other SGB members, he was informed that he could use the school bakkie.
80. He testified that he travelled by Uber to the school, where Ms Annet handed him the bakkie keys, having been informed by the SGB chairperson. He used the bakkie to collect application forms from the Tshwane South District Office and proceeded to the shortlisting venue.
81. The applicant testified that he arrived late for the shortlisting due to a vehicle breakdown. After the shortlisting concluded at approximately 19h15, the SGB chairperson requested him to drop off the intern who served as the scribe. He thereafter returned the bakkie to the school parking area, where his wife collected him.
82. He testified that on 23 June 2021, he again used the bakkie to transport confidential interview materials and applications to Hennops Park and later returned the vehicle to the school at approximately 14h05. He denied that he kept the vehicle between 15 and 21 June 2021, stating that while he retained the key, the bakkie remained parked at the school.
83. With regard to the logbook, the applicant testified that he completed entries on 15 June 2021 after the last recorded entry by Ms Viljoen. He stated that the logbook was incomplete and being updated. He recorded the destination as “Department – collecting application forms” due to limited space.
84. He testified that the SGB chairperson authorised his use of the vehicle and that he did not consider it improper to rely on that authorisation. He further testified that he could not utilise lift club arrangements on the day due to colleagues’ commitments.
85. The applicant testified that he was on the MMS scheme and ordinarily claimed travel costs when using his private vehicle. He believed that clause 10.1.2 of the GG Vehicle Policy permitted usage with authorisation and denied knowledge of any policy prohibiting him from using the school vehicle.
    GENERAL EVIDENCE
86. The applicant testified that not all duties were required to be reported immediately to his supervisor and that activities were captured in weekly reports. He denied that he acted dishonestly or outside his mandate.
87. He testified that he was employed by the respondent and not by the SGB and that the respondent was responsible for providing him with tools of trade to perform his functions.
88. He maintained that all his actions were taken in good faith, with authorisation, and in the interests of the school and the Department.
    THE EVIDENCE OF THE SECOND WITNESS
    MR MASHUDU MUDAU – FORMER SGB CHAIRPERSON
89. Mr Mudau testified that in 2021, he was the chairperson of the SGB at Laerskool Fleur and that the applicant was the IDSO assigned to the school.
90. He testified that on 15 June 2021, the applicant contacted him to report that his private vehicle had broken down. Mr Mudau consulted telephonically with available SGB members, including Ms Nkosi and Ms Lorraine, and they agreed that the applicant could use the school bakkie for the benefit of the school.
91. He denied that he acted unilaterally and testified that although the consultation was not a formal meeting and was not minuted, the decision was collectively taken. No complaints were raised at the time regarding the applicant’s use of the vehicle.
92. He testified that, to his knowledge, the bakkie was parked at the school from 16 to 21 June 2021 and that no SGB member raised concerns about its whereabouts. The first complaint he became aware of was in October 2021.
93. Concerning the Makro purchases, he testified that cleaning materials were regarded as part of the day-to-day running of the school. He recalled discussions regarding the need for a printer, but did not personally authorise the full list and could not recall the spending limits.
94. He testified that Ms Annet, as a member of the SGB, was involved in day-to-day operations and that the SGB had consulted on the purchases. He conceded under cross-examination that the principal and finance committee ordinarily carried responsibility for procurement.
95. He testified that the applicant was employed by the respondent and that the respondent was responsible for providing tools of trade.
    THE EVIDENCE OF THE THIRD WITNESS
    MR MOHLOPHEHI ANDRIES MDLULI
96. Mr Mdluli testified that he previously served as an IDSO, governance coordinator, and circuit manager. His responsibilities included training SGBs on governance, finance, recruitment and selection, and policy implementation.
97. He testified that where a school lacked updated policies, existing policies remained applicable until replaced. The Department provided training and guidance to SGBs on financial governance.
98. He testified that it would be unfair to charge the applicant under a 2022 policy for conduct that occurred in 2021 and that school policies should have been applied.
99. He further testified that shortlisting constituted an educational purpose in terms of section 37(6)(a) of the South African Schools Act and that departmental officials were required to participate in recruitment processes.
100. Under cross-examination, he conceded that there was no specific provision authorising a cluster leader to use a school vehicle and that GG vehicles could not ordinarily be used. He confirmed that the applicant was on the MMS scheme and that colleagues generally assisted one another when vehicles were not fit for purpose.
101. He testified that the respondent was responsible for providing tools of trade to the applicant and that the applicant was not employed by the SGB.
     THE EVIDENCE OF ISAIVANI THAYAGHEN PADAYACHEE
     FORMER PRINCIPAL: LAERSKOOL FLEUR
102. Mr Padayachee testified that he was appointed as principal of Laerskool Fleur on 2 May 2017 and retired on early retirement with effect from 31 March 2021.
103. He testified that during his tenure as principal, there was no formally designated driver for the school bakkie. The vehicle was used by himself as principal, the deputy principal, and the administrative staff. Ms Viljoen was not a designated driver and was not an educator.
104. He testified that he attended a workshop organised by the school, during which the applicant requested that he accompany him to the school to collect the school bakkie to fetch certain items. He assisted the applicant in doing so.
105. Mr Padayachee testified that he regularly went to Makro to purchase items for the school with the approval of the SGB chairperson. He confirmed that the school had a finance policy in place.
106. In terms of that policy, any purchase exceeding R5 000.00 requires quotations, irrespective of the item. High-value items such as smart TVs or laptops required three quotations. Purchases below R5 000.00 require approval from the SGB chairperson.
107. He testified that as principal, he would normally compile the shopping list, which would then be approved by the SGB chairperson. Upon returning from Makro, the administrative staff would check the invoice against the items received, and the invoice would be filed by the finance officer.
108. He testified that it was not always practical for the SGB chairperson to physically sign documentation and that approvals were sometimes given telephonically.
109. Under cross-examination, Mr Padayachee confirmed that as principal, he was required to comply with departmental legislation and policies. He testified that he had not personally been requested to authorise the applicant’s use of the school vehicle and was not aware of such a request.
110. He testified that the school bakkie was used for Laerskool Fleur matters. He confirmed that the applicant was the IDSO assigned to the school and acted as the link between the school and the Department.
111. He further testified that the school did not provide tools of trade to the applicant, as the applicant was an employee of the Department and not of the SGB.
     THE EVIDENCE OF THE FIFTH WITNESS
     MS MATHEKGA MAHLOGOLO – SGB MEMBER (2021) AND CURRENT SGB CHAIRPERSON
112. Ms Mahlogolo testified that in 2021, she was a parent member of the SGB at Laerskool Fleur and that she is currently the chairperson of the SGB at the same school.
113. She testified that on 15 June 2021, the SGB conducted a shortlisting process at Hennops Primary School. The applicant attended the process in his capacity as a resource person.
114. She testified that on the morning of 15 June 2021, she initially went to Laerskool Fleur, where she met the Acting Principal, Ms Annet. Ms Annet reminded her that the shortlisting venue was Hennops Primary School.
115. The shortlisting was scheduled to commence at 09h00, but members agreed to begin earlier. Ms Mahlogolo arrived at approximately 08h45 and found the SGB chairperson, Mr Mudau, the treasurer Ms Nkosi, and another member present. The applicant had not yet arrived.
116. The chairperson informed the SGB members that the applicant had contacted him to report a breakdown of his private vehicle and requested permission to use the school bakkie. The chairperson indicated that he could not authorise the request alone and that the applicant was required at the shortlisting to provide guidance and deliver documentation.
117. The SGB members present agreed that the applicant could use the school bakkie. Ms Nkosi did not object. The chairperson then contacted the applicant and informed him that he could use the vehicle.
118. Ms Mahlogolo testified that the applicant used the school bakkie for the purpose of attending the shortlisting and that he did not use the vehicle for personal purposes.
119. She testified that one of the functions of the SGB is governance, including ensuring that school assets are used appropriately. She stated that in September 2021, the SGB members were informed that the applicant had been charged. They informed Mr Ralephata that the applicant had used the vehicle with SGB consent. She testified that the SGB members were surprised to learn that the matter had not first been raised with the SGB.
120. She testified that she could not recall whether the school had a formal policy regulating the use of the school bakkie. At the time, there was one designated driver, but Sipho or Jacqueline were often requested to drive, and in practice, other individuals also drove the vehicle when necessary.
121. She testified that an examination of the logbook entries made by the applicant did not reflect any personal use of the vehicle.
122. Concerning the Makro purchases, she testified that the SGB had decided to purchase a printer and that the applicant was assigned to purchase Makro. She testified that the marking on the Makro tax invoice indicated that all purchased items were received and that Ms Annet received the items at the school.
123. She denied the allegation that the applicant purchased the printer and earphones without SGB approval, stating that the items were used and that the purchase had been authorised.
124. She testified that the interviews took place on 21 June 2021 and that she personally travelled to Limpopo with her family during that period.
125. Under cross-examination, Ms Mahlogolo testified that the arrangements for shortlisting were coordinated by the applicant and that it was agreed that members would generally use their own transport. However, it was verbally agreed that the applicant could use the school bakkie if necessary.
126. She confirmed that Laerskool Fleur is a public school governed by the laws of the Republic of South Africa.
127. She testified that the respondent, as the employer, was responsible for providing tools of trade to the applicant. She confirmed that the applicant experienced a breakdown of his private vehicle and not a GG vehicle.
128. She testified that no request was made to the Head of Department for permission to use the school bakkie. In her understanding, where the SGB reached consensus, and the use benefited the school, further permission was not required.
129. She stated that she could not comment on internal employment issues between the applicant and his supervisor, including allegations that the applicant falsely claimed that he was acting as caretaker principal.
     ANALYSIS
130. This matter concerns an alleged unfair dismissal. The existence of a dismissal is not in dispute. In terms of section 192(2) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995, as amended (“the LRA”), the respondent bears the onus to prove that the dismissal was fair.
131. Both parties submitted documentary evidence, referred to as bundle “R” and bundle “A” respectively. The respondent called four witnesses in support of its case, whilst the applicant called five witnesses. Both the respondent and the applicant submitted their closing arguments in writing.
132. In determining whether the dismissal was fair, I am required to consider section 188(1) of the LRA, which obliges an employer to prove that the dismissal was for a fair reason and effected in accordance with a fair procedure.
133. It is common cause that the applicant was charged and dismissed for misconduct. According to the notice of disciplinary enquiry, the applicant was charged in terms of section 18(1)(a) of the Employment of Educators Act 76 of 1998, as amended (“the EEA”).
134. Section 18(1)(a) of the EEA provides that an educator commits misconduct if he or she fails to comply with, or contravenes, an Act of Parliament, regulation, or legal obligation.
     ALLEGATION I: UNAUTHORISED USE OF A SCHOOL VEHICLE
135. The first allegation is that the applicant utilised a school vehicle belonging to Laerskool Fleur for his own personal use during the period 15 June 2021 to 21 June 2021.
136. The evidence focused primarily on whether the applicant, in his capacity as Cluster Leader, was authorised to drive the school vehicle. The issues for determination are:
     • whether the applicant was authorised to use the school vehicle;
     • whether the vehicle was in his possession during the relevant period; and
     • whether the vehicle was used for personal purposes.
137. It is common cause that on 15 June 2021, the School Governing Body (“SGB”) of Laerskool Fleur met at Hennops Park Primary School to conduct shortlisting for the position of Deputy Principal. It is not disputed that the applicant was part of the interview panel.
138. The applicant testified that he experienced a vehicle breakdown on his way to Hennops Park Primary School. He contacted the SGB Chairperson at the time, Mr Mudau, to inform him of the incident.
139. The respondent’s evidence was that the applicant ought to have reported the incident to the Senior Manager, Mrs van der Walt, before utilising the school vehicle. The applicant failed to do so.
140. Mr Mphahlele testified that the applicant could not immediately report the problem to Mrs van der Walt because approval from the Head of Department was required for the use of a government vehicle, which could take time due to the applicable scheme.
141. I find this explanation unconvincing. The applicant took an Uber to the school to collect the vehicle, which indicates that there was no urgency justifying a deviation from established procedures. He could have taken an Uber to the district office to discuss the matter with Mrs van der Walt and seek the necessary approval.
142. It appears that the applicant, together with Ms Mathekga and Mr Mudau, displayed a disregard for established processes. As a middle-management employee, the applicant ought to have known better.
143. The next issue is whether the school vehicle was in the applicant’s possession between 16 June 2021 and 21 June 2021. There is no evidence demonstrating that the vehicle itself was in the applicant’s possession during this period. The applicant testified that he only had the vehicle keys.
144. There is no evidence that the school was deprived of the use of the vehicle during this period. I am therefore not persuaded that the vehicle was in the applicant’s possession for the period alleged.
145. Finally, regarding whether the applicant used the vehicle for personal purposes, there is no evidence of any incident where the applicant was seen using the vehicle for non-educational purposes.
146. Accordingly, I find that the respondent failed to discharge the onus in respect of Allegation I.

ALLEGATION II: UNAUTHORISED USE OF THE MACRO CREDIT CARD

139. The second allegation is that the applicant utilised the school’s Makro credit card to purchase goods, including a printer and earphones, without authorisation.
140. I observed material contradictions between the applicant’s version and that of his witness, Ms Mathekga. The applicant testified that the SGB Chairperson requested him to go to Macro because Sipho did not have a driver’s licence. Ms Mathekga, however, testified that Sipho or Jacqueline were ordinarily requested to drive the school bakkie.
141. The applicant failed to dispute Mrs van der Walt’s evidence that the school already had several printers, including portable printers. I therefore do not accept Mr Mhahlele’s argument that the printer was approved by the SGB and placed on an approved shopping list.
142. The applicant also failed to dispute Ms Galego’s testimony that, as Cluster Leader, he ought to have refused to purchase items that did not benefit the school or serve an educational purpose.
143. The applicant did not deny that the printer remained in his possession until the investigation commenced. His response in this regard was insufficient.
144. There is also a clear contradiction between the versions of the applicant and Mr Mudau. The applicant testified that Mr Mudau instructed him to go to Macro. Mr Mudau, however, testified that Ms Annet contacted him to request permission for the applicant to go to Makro.
145. Mr Mudau conceded that he did not enquire about the contents of the shopping list and merely assumed that Ms Annet had SGB authority. This does not constitute proper authorisation by the SGB.
146. I therefore find that the applicant and Mr Mudau attempted to mislead the Council regarding the alleged approval by the SGB. There was no explicit agreement by the SGB to purchase the printer and earphones.
147. The printer and earphones were purchased without proper authorisation, in contravention of procurement procedures.

APPROPRIATENESS OF THE SANCTION

148. The applicant’s conduct constitutes a contravention of section 18(1)(a) of the EEA, which is a dismissible offence.
149. I agree with Ms Galego’s evidence that the applicant had a duty to prevent fruitless and wasteful expenditure. The earphones, which cost R599.00, could have been utilised for educational purposes.
150. It is a trite law that in cases involving dishonesty or misuse of resources by senior employees, the quantum involved is immaterial. The trust relationship was irreparably damaged.
151. The applicant showed no remorse for his conduct. In the circumstances, no lesser sanction would have been appropriate.
152. I therefore find that the dismissal of the applicant was substantively fair.

AWARD

153. The dismissal of the applicant, Mr Ben Skhosana, by the Department of Education: Gauteng Province, is substantively fair.
154. The dispute is dismissed.

P. Maitsha
ELRC Panelist