AWARD

In the ARBITRATION between

Details of hearing and representation

1. The arbitration regarding the alleged unfair dismissal, referred in terms of section 191 of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 [as amended], ‘’the LRA’’ was heard on 25 October 2024, 24 January 2025 and 1 & 2 April 2025 at the premises of the respondent situated at Wonderboom Junction, 11 Lavender Road, Wonderboom.   

2. The applicant was represented by Mr. C. Nomandindi an official from SADTU while the respondent was at first represented by Mr. J. Rathilaya and from 1 April 2025 by Ms. M. Ralioma, the Labour Relations Officer.

3. The arbitration was electronically recorded, and handwritten notes were taken.  At the conclusion of the arbitration, the parties agreed to submit written closing arguments on/before 14 April 2025. Both parties have complied.

Issues to be decided

4. I must determine if the dismissal of the applicant was substantively fair.  

5. Appropriate relief must be determined in the event of a finding of unfairness,

Background to the dispute

6. The applicant, had been employed as an educator since August 1991 and was a Principal at Mafumbuka Primary School since 2014.  

7. The applicant was dismissed on 16 July 2024 on four charges of misconduct subsequent to a disciplinary hearing.

8. The charges read as follows:

Allegation 1

It is alleged that during the 2020/2021 financial year whilst employed at Mafumbuka Primary School, you submitted bank statements to B.G. Nubong & Associates Chartered Accountants (SA) for the audit year ending 31 December 2021 without supporting documents.

In view of the above allegations, you are thus charged in terms of Section 18(1)(f) of the Employment of Educators Act, 76 of 1998 as amended.

Allegation 2

It is alleged that during the 2020/2021 financial year whilst employed at Mafumbuka Primary School, you made the following payments without supporting documents

LTSM Expenses                                                         R165000.00

Selg-built classrooms                                                 R299 297.00

Office Stationary                                                         R45000.00

In view of the above allegations, you are thus charged in terms of Section 18(1)(b) of the Employment of Educators Act, 76 of 1998 as amended.

Allegation 3

It is alleged that during the period January 2023 while on duty at Mafumbuka Primary School, you unjustifiably prejudiced the administration, discipline or efficiency of the department in that you failed to report Ms. M.E.  Mphahlele abscondment

In view of the above allegations, you are thus charged in terms of Section 18(1)(f) of the Employment of Educators Act, 76 of 1998 as amended.

Allegation 4

It is alleged that during the period January 2023 while on duty at Mafumbuka Primary School, you were dishonest by signing pay sheets on behalf of Ms  M.E Mphahlele whereas she was not rendering service to the employer.

In view of the above allegations, you are thus charged in terms of Section 18(1)(ee) of the Employment of Educators Act, 76 of 1998 as amended.

9. The applicant seeks compensation.

10. The parties provided a signed pre-arbitration agreement detailing amongst others the common cause and disputed issues. The procedure was not disputed but with regard to substance it was stated that” ‘’ whether the applicant is guilty of the charges, whether the sanction of dismissal was appropriate’’

11. On 25 October 2024, the applicant appeared with an attorney, Mr. Evans. The respondent objected to the applicant being legally represented and following oral submissions on behalf of both parties an ex tempore ruling was made on record, that such was not granted. This ruling is deemed to be part of the award.

Survey of evidence and argument

The LRA requires that brief reasons be given in an award, therefore the following is a summary of the relevant evidence given under oath and submissions made in argument all of which is not reflected in this award but had nevertheless been taken into account.

Respondent’s evidence

12. The respondent called five (5) witnesses in order to prove, on a preponderance of probabilities that the dismissal of the applicant was substantively fair.

13. The first witness, Ms Rejoice Manamela testified that she is currently the Deputy Director: Transversal Human Resource Services (THRS) and during 2023 was the Assistant Director HR Positioning (HRP) fulfilling all duties/roles associated with such positions.

14. Ms Manamela submitted that she knows the applicant who was the Principal at Mafumbuka Primary School.  During 2023 the process/policy regarding a transfer was that the educator who wished to transfer, had to approach his/her Principal by way of a written request to be transferred. In the event of a provincial transfer such letter must be addressed to the HOD if the transfer if from one province to another. If such is not done, and the educator ‘’release him/herself’’ such is regarded as a discharge. Ms. M.E Mphahlele had been transferred to Mafumbuka Primary School during 2021/2022 following this process and rendered services there. Towards the end of 2022 Ms Mphahlele was in excess (additional) and approached her for a cross-transfer and she informed her that such cannot be done as she was in excess. Later in the day, Aluciah ( the mentor of the school) approached her accompanied by Ms Mphahlele who stated that she wanted to move in January 2023, but she told her, she was late and had no documentation. She told her to bring the pack of documents during January 2023 and that a move can be done during April 2023. She however failed to provide any documents.

15. According to Ms. Manamela, Ms. Mphahlele had absconded as claimed in allegation 3 as there was no approved transfer due to the lack of documentation. She then received a letter from the applicant (Bundle A pages 21 & 22) on 18 August 2023 stating that she was not informed by Ms Mphahlele that she is leaving the school. As Principal (and accounting officer) the applicant was to manage the school  and cannot claim ignorance of the whereabouts of her educators nor state that she ‘’did not know what to do’’ and as Principal is aware of the transfer process to be followed. This knowledge of the process is clear from the applicant’s letter (Bundle D page 10).

16. Ms. Manamela submitted that during April 2023 she was informed by Aluciah that Mafumbuka wanted to fill a post as Ms. Mphahlele had left. This post could not be filled as Ms. Mphahlele was declared in excess (additional)  and there were no documents regarding her transfer. During May/June 2023 she then checked the school personnel records and found that Ms. Mphahlele was shown as being at the school and was being paid. At her instruction, Aluciah approached the applicant and informed her to take Ms Mphahlele off the system. She then in addition to this, sent the applicant emails ( Bundle C pages 17-20) but received no response and when she phoned the applicant, she did not answer the phone. She then approached the cluster leader who in turn approached labour.  

17. Regarding allegation 4, Ms Manamela stated that Ms Mphahlele was not at the school but appeared on the payroll (Bundle B pages 36 – 37) that is from finance to certify if an educator had rendered services and was thus to be paid.  The names of the educators appear on the payroll and each had to sign such to show they were at school and had to be paid. Such is done to avoid ‘’ghost educators’’ being paid. If an educator is not at school, it must be indicated on the payroll. No-one can sign on behalf of another. As Ms. Mphahlele left the school during January 2023, pages 37, 41, 47,50, 57 is untrue as she could not have signed such. The signature appearing against her name is not hers but that of the applicant ( who cannot sign on her behalf) and creates the impression she was rendering services at the school (during February – May 2023) and must be paid. This is dishonest and it was the duty of the applicant to inform the respondent that Ms Mphahlele was not at the school.  

18. The second witness, Ms Aluciah Malehopo testified that she is the Chief Principal Officer (CPO) at the HRP unit, Tshwane North, since 2013 and amongst others deals with transfers and placement of additional educators. She knows the applicant, who was the Principal at Mafumbuka Primary School that is one of the schools she is responsible for.

19. Ms Malehopo stated that during 2022 she and the applicant were involved in transfers (Ngema and Mpahlele)., the latter being transferred to Mafumbuka from North West on 1 July 2022. During November 2022 her post at Mafumbuka was declared in excess  and she asked for a transfer. This was not entertained as she did not have all relevant documents. Upon  Ms. Mpahlele’s insistence, they approached her supervisor (Joyce) who explained the transfer process to her (Mphahlele) and also stated that she is aware of such having been transferred before and questioned her about the absence of documents. Ms. Mphahlele was told that she must provide the necessary documents during January 2023 and that she can be transferred from 1 April 2023.

20. It was submitted that as HRP they were aware that Ms. Mpahlele was not at school (being in excess) and when the applicant approached them to fill a post at school, they wanted to know which post and was told that it was that of Ms. Mpahlele whom the applicant then said was transferred during January 2023. She informed the applicant that such was impossible as they had not received any documents including a release letter from the school. The applicant informed her that she was requested by Ms. Moloi (the cluster leader) to provide a release letter. She informed the applicant that such letter does not mean that the transfer was approved by the HOD. Bundle C pages 17-20 reflect the correspondence with the applicant, herself and the supervisor and page 21 – 25 show correspondence from the applicant.

21. The third witness, Mr. Malebathi Ramala testified that he is a senior accounting clerk at Finance and Administration at the school unit and amongst other duties is responsible for payroll, distributing the payroll to schools (who then give payslips to the officials), and for the officials to sign the payroll to acknowledge receipt of their pay slips, that they worked and thus entitled to be paid. The principal returns the payroll to their office to be filed for audit purposes.

22. Mr Ramala stated that he knows the payroll sheets  for Mafumbuka for the period January to May 2023 (Bundle B pages 36 – 58) which are given to schools for signature by officials and for the reasons as stated and therefore one official cannot sign for another. The principal can sign on behalf of an official who is absent as the principal as accounting officer knows the whereabouts of his/her educators but must indicate that such is not at school ( and give the reason for the absence) and must return the payslip. If the principal signs on behalf of an educator ( page 37) without indicating such is absent and giving the reason, the respondent is misled as they would not be aware that the educator is absent. Payment of an educator (Mphahlele) who is no longer at the school, is a loss for the respondent as no services were rendered.

23. The fourth witness, Mr. Mpho Madumo testified that he is the Assistant Director responsible for school finances. He is currently at the sub-directorate Administration for Institutions. He knows the applicant who was the Principal at Mafumbuka.

24. Mr. Madumo stated that in terms of section 16 of the Schools Act, a principal represents the respondent at the SGB (School Governing Body) and inter alia advises the SGB of financial and other policies, has to ensure that the school keep financial records, records of its assets and liabilities and has to ensure that financial records are submitted for auditing purposes at the end of a financial year. Financial records/statements are to be submitted with all supporting documentation. These documents are requisitions (signed by the chairperson of the SGB, Principal and treasurer), invoices, three quotes, delivery notes and proof of payment.

25. With reference to allegation 1 it was testified that schools are reminded annually to appoint a bookkeeper and auditor. This is outsourced as the SGB normally do not have the skills to do so. The SGB ( via the book keeper) do the financial statements by 31 March whereafter it is submitted to the auditor.  During January they would follow up with the book keeper to determine if financial records where submitted and if not, they follow up with the school. One such school was Mafumbuka and  due to the non-compliance, a team visited the principal. Later the matter was escalated and he became involved  and visited the principal around June.  He was then informed by the principal (applicant) that the books were lost. He was told ‘’many stories’’ and tried to make sense of such.

26. Mr. Madumo testified that he was informed by the applicant that she had sent the financial officer (FO) to deliver the books at the book keeper (who disputed this when he made enquiries) and stated that there were no records that any documents had been received. He was also told that the book keeper did not give a receipt which is not true as such is always given. If documents are submitted, copies are kept as back up as the disaster might befall the originals. The school however, had no back up of the documents they claimed to have submitted. They have also not submitted any supporting documents, there was thus no financial statements but only a bank statement. Due to this the school received an unfavourable (qualified) finding (Bundle B pages 15 – 18). The SGB signed off the financial statements and agreed on the finding (Bundle B page 18). It was therefore agreed that there were no financial statements, financial records and supporting documentation given to the book keeper. The applicant gave a written statement regarding this issue (Bundle B Pages 33 – 35).

27. The applicant as principal had the duty to keep and provide proper records/supporting documents, which she failed to do, thus resulting in the unfavourable finding. The risk of this is that the school can lose its allocation for services/LTSM. The school can become a section 20 school, where the HOD would manage its budget. The school was placed under administration until such time as the respondent can capacitate the SGB.

28. Mr. Madumo stated with regards to charge 2 that no supporting documentation were provided as stated in the charge and that a bank statement is not sufficient.

29. Regarding charge 4 Mr. Madumo testified that the payroll (Bundle B pages 36, 41) contains the names of the officials who receives a salary and the principal has to ensure that they indeed have the right to be paid. If an official is absent, the principal must indicate this on the payroll against the name of the specific official. Officials have to sign themselves to show they were rendering service and must be paid. If the principal signs on behalf of an official, this is ‘’untoward’’ and dishonest as it shows an employee is at school, had worked and must be paid. The principal has to sign (against her own name) and as shown on page 43. This is to certify that all persons on the payroll are entitled to payment ( unless otherwise indicated). This page also shows clearly that all who receive salaries must sign for receipt of their cheques/salary advices. The principal however did not sign page 43 but it was signed by the deputy principal which is against the treasury regulations.

30. The fifth witness, Ms. Lucia Nomsa Maluleka testified that she is a cluster leader at Tshwane North District and as such the supervisor of Mafumbuka School, her role is to support, advise and guide the principal (applicant).

31. According to Ms. Maluleka she received an email with the list of schools that did not submit audited financial statements (charge 1). She thus approached the applicant at school to determine why this was not done and asked her to give a written report (Bundle A pages 23 – 24) as she claimed the books were submitted. She also advised her to open a case at SAPS against the person who took the books to the auditor. The applicant had not reported this issue to her before she had approached her at school. The applicant did not inform her of any fire that led to the books being burnt. The fire at school was in any event before the issue with the books not being submitted.

32. Regarding charge 3 Ms. Maluleka stated that the applicant approached her towards the end of the year, seeking advice regarding a transfer. She then told her that the educator must initiate the process by way of a written letter, informing of the school whereto the transfer is to be, a letter from the Principal/SGB releasing him/her at the school where services are rendered and all HR forms to be completed. She had no knowledge of Ms Mphahlele leaving and there were no further discussions during January. She then received a call from HR, asking her if she is aware that at Mafumbuka a teacher is being paid but no longer rendering services there. She was shocked by this and approached labour to find out what was going on. In her presence, labour (Ms Ralioma) phoned the applicant (the phone was on speaker) and the applicant then said ‘’something along the lines of’’,  ‘’it is not your money, why are you worried’. She cannot recall asking the applicant to give a report on Ms. Mphahlele as she claimed (Bundle A page 22). The applicant did not report the absence of Ms. Mphahlele to her as she was informed by HR of the situation.  

Applicant’s evidence

33. The applicant in addition to giving evidence, called two witnesses to testify on her behalf.

34. The applicant, Ms. Zodwa Elsie Hlabangane testified regarding charge 3 that she was aware that Ms. Mphahlele an educator at Mafumbuka was declared in excess/additional and was removed to work at another school. She had reported this to IDSO (Ms. Maluleka). She had received a phone call from Mr. Mathe, the district official at North West who requested a release letter for Ms. Mphahlele that he wanted to submit on her behalf at Tshwane North due to their claim that the letter ‘’was missing in their office’’. She then phoned the IDSO (December 2022) and informed her of the request and was told to write the release letter and to involve the SGB. She was also told what information to put in the letter and mailed this letter ( D page 10) to the IDSO on the same day. The evidence of the respondent’s witnesses that she did not report it, is incorrect as Bundle C pages 17 & 18 show her report during March 2023.

35. Ms. Hlabangane stated that  the evidence that she reported it ‘’late’’ is not true. She also did not write Ms. Mphahlele’s name on the payroll but her own, and just ‘’signed as principal’’ and made no notes. If the payroll is returned to the district if must be fully signed by all educators, and if not, it is returned to the school. If an educator is not at school, the principal is given permission to sign on behalf of such absent educator. She just signed to show that she had received all salary advices of the educators. If absent she would take the salary advice and put it on the personnel file. This is common practise as all principles do this. The evidence of the respondent’s witnesses that the payroll and salary advices must be returned is untrue as they only return the payroll. She has no responsibility to report to labour as she reported to HR.

36. According to Ms. Hlabangane, the email from Rejoice telling her to report to labour, was not received. She was given such information by Lucia (IDSO) and given the desertion form to complete which she did in August 2023. She did not attend any workshop or induction for principals. The evidence that she had no power to write a release letter as this is done by the district, is not true.  Ms. Mphahlele did not abscond, she was in excess and had informed the respondent of her transfer and she had explained the whereabouts of Ms. Mphahlele ( Bunde A pages 21-22) on 18 August 2023.

37. With reference to charge 4, Ms. Hlabangane submitted that she received the payroll ( pages 36 & 37 Bundle B) from the respondent, and signed as Ms. Mphahlele was not at work. She was not dishonest as the payroll must be returned to the respondent, fully signed and if not, it is returned to the school. It is not true that by signing she had misled the respondent, due to the common practise followed by principals to sign ‘’as long as she had explained to HR the transfer’’. It shows that HR had not removed her from the payroll/persal.  The evidence of the respondent, that a principal is to advise the SGB is correct, especially due to her role at the financial committee. Financial records are kept by the FO at school and the FO keeps all her (applicant)  documents in her (applicant) office.  

38. Ms. Hlabangane stated that she never said ‘’why do you worry, this is not your money’’. Regarding charge 1, she had submitted the documents ( not personally) but delegated the FO to do so. All supporting documents were with it. The FO ( Ms. Mkwanasi) told her that she had submitted everything. However, she found out ‘’later’’ in June 2022 that it was not at the office of the accountant. Mr. Madumo ( the FO of the respondent) phoned her to find out about the progress of the auditing of the financial statement. She told him she had not received feedback but will follow up. She then phoned the book keeper ( Solly Sekgadi) on the same day as he was responsible to receive all documents. He was however, not available on his landline or cell phone. The next day she phoned Mr. Madumo but could not reach him, the whole day. About 2 days later, she visited their offices (June) and found Solly, informing him that she was there to collect the financial statements as the due date was near. He told her he had not received their financial books which was then the first time she found out that the books had not reached their office. The banking statement and supporting documents were part of the financial documents in the file that was given to the bookkeeper and had to be given to the auditor.  During discussions, the senior book keeper (Charity) said the financial audit can be done with the bank statement. She then said she would inform Mr. Madumo of this and told Charity that she would give the bank statement for January to December 2021.

39. Ms Hlabangane testified that she ‘’did not know’’ what happened to the files that were lost as such was not at the book keeper. The back up files were also a challenge as the administration office and her office have burned ( Bundle D page 8). Regarding charge 2, she did not make payments without supporting documentation as no payment can be done without such. Payments are done by herself, the treasurer and the chairperson of the SGB.

40. The applicant’s first witness, Mr. Thabang Ramotata testified that he had been a member of the SGB since 2021 and is the treasurer and part of the financial committee with the principal, chairperson of the SGB and the FO. His role is to manage funds, prepare the budget, chair meetings of the financial committee, advise the SGB on finances and report to the parents at the AGM about the budget/finances.

41. With reference to charges 1 & 2,  Mr. Ramotata testified that supporting documents (requisitions, invoices, delivery notes, projects, payments) and all books for 2020/2021 were submitted to the auditors by the FO (Welma). The financial committee were called by the principal and informed that she had been at the auditors for the financial statements and was then informed that they had not received the file.  The principal further informed them that she asked the FO about the file and was told it had been submitted at the auditors. Payments to service providers are authorised by their principal and the chairperson of the SGB and co-signed by himself as treasurer. Regarding charge 2, he ‘’knows’’ that payments were done with supporting documents and ‘’maybe it got lost at the book keeper’’.   

42 The second witness of the applicant, Ms. Wilhelmina Makwanasi testified that she is the FO (financial manager) and as such responsible for managing finances, keeping financial records, financial transactions, petty cash, assisting the treasurer with the budget issuing receipts to parents, banking money and receiving fundraising money.

43. Ms Makwanasi stated that she submitted all documents/file and supporting documents. This was to be given to Solly but as he was not available it was given to Thapelo at the instruction of Solly, who told her he ‘’is on the way’’.  She did so but was not given an acknowledgement of receipt by Thapelo as he was not responsible for their school and said Solly would get back to her. They waited for Solly to get back to them. She cannot recall any payments made without supporting documentation (charge 2).

Analysis of Evidence and Arguments

44. Section 192(1] of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 as amended (LRA) places the onus on an applicant to establish the existence of the dismissal, which in this matter was common cause as was the procedural fairness thereof.

45. Section 192(2) requires that the respondent must prove that the dismissal was substantively fair.

46. The LRA, in schedule 8, sets out the guidelines for a fair dismissal. Item 7 specifically refers to misconduct and states as follows:

“Any person who is determining whether a dismissal for misconduct is unfair should consider –

(a) Whether or not the employee contravened a rule or standard regulating conduct in, or of relevance to, the workplace; and

(b) if a rule or standard was contravened whether or not-

(i) the rule was a valid or reasonable rule or standard;

(ii) the employee was aware, or could reasonably be expected to have been aware of the rule or standard;

(iii)] the rule or standard has been consistently applied by the employer and;

(iv) dismissal was an appropriate sanction for the contravention of the rule or standard. “

47. The applicant was charged in terms of section 18 (1) (f), (b) and (ee) of the Employment of Educators, Act 76 of 1998 as amended, the EEA. 

48. The existence of the rule/s as contained in the Act were not disputed by the applicant. The only substantive issues to be dealt with is that contained in item 8(7) (a) and (iv). The remainder of the substantive issues (item 8(7) (b) (i – iii) were not placed in dispute.

49. The respondent thus had to prove, on a preponderance of probabilities that the workplace rules were contravened and that the sanction of dismissal was appropriate.  

50. This matter was heard over a period of three days, with the respondent calling 5 witnesses to testify on its behalf and the applicant calling two witnesses to support her case. All witnesses were subjected to protracted cross-examination.

51. The applicant was the Principal of Mafumbuka Primary School and as such the accounting officer and the respondent’s representative on the SGB (School Governing Body). The proverbial buck thus stopped with her. It was part of her duties to advise the SGB on financial matters and was responsible for financial records and the submission thereof to bookkeeper/auditor.

52. She had been an educator since August 1991 and Principal at Mafumbuka Primary School since 2014.  Her protestations of innocence regarding amongst others, having no knowledge of transfers, abscondment, not receiving training and not receiving emails/calls do not serve her well. Nor does the fact that she delegated authority regarding crucial aspects to others such as the signing of the payroll (to the deputy Principal) and the submissions of the schools books, financial statements and supporting documentation to the FO. This despite acknowledging during cross-examination that such was her responsibility. It seems that there was a trend of passing blame to others such as the FO, the book keeper, HR and the respondent in general. It seems that the applicant was of the view that being a principal revolves around the title, status and money but without any duties, responsibilities or accountability, if her version is to be believed. She was merely a pawn subjected to the incompetence of others and events outside her control such as the fire.

53. As accounting officer, the applicant was responsible for submitting financial statements with supporting documentation to the book keepers appointed by the school, a fact she admitted during cross-examination. It was common cause that this task was given to the FO ( who also admitted that such was to be done by the applicant). This much is clear from the evidence.

54. What followed this ( which is a fact) is that the bookkeeper had no financial statements or supporting documentation. The applicant and her witnesses blamed the book keeper for the fact that it was missing and in a bizarre twist of fate, blames a fire for destroying any and all backup documents. This is a convenient untruth. The evidence by the applicant was that the documents and supporting documents were provided to the book keeper during March 2022 (referred to as the full file). She stated that the fire was during September 2021 that destroyed the back up. She was asked repeatedly (without giving a clear answer) why the full file was not backed up during March 2022 and how it was possible that a fire during September 2021 (thus before the full file was submitted) could have destroyed documents, given her evidence that a full file was provided during March 2022. If indeed the 2021 fire destroyed documents it would have been impossible to provide a full file during March 2022.

55. If indeed a fire had destroyed documents during September 2021 and thereafter it was possible to submit a full file, one would have expected the accounting office (applicant) to be extra vigilant and to immediately make more than one back up thereof and store it for safekeeping in various locations. In the highly technological age we operate it, disaster could have been avoided if documents were placed in the cloud.

56. The applicant called two witnesses to support her version that a full file was provided and the backup was destroyed in a fire. One was the FO (Financial Officer) Ms. Makwanasi and the other the treasurer of the SGB, Mr. Ramotata.

57. Mr Ramotata had no direct knowledge regarding the submission of the file and relayed what he had been told by the principal and the FO. His scant evidence regarding charge 2 was that ‘’all payments were done with supporting documentation’’ and stated that ‘’maybe it was lost at the bookkeeper’’  he also washed his hands and proclaimed his innocence stating he was not responsible for making backups, but that such was done by the FO. One would have expected that someone who was in the highly responsible role as treasure to act, and to take steps as to what occurred. He did nothing but merely accepted what he was told. He stated that the fire was during September 2021 and that in March 2022 the file was handed to the auditor. In answer to the question why a backup was not made, he gave various answers, he stated that it was burned, then that they had the originals on file, did not ask to make copies at a neighbouring school (their copier was not working) as this was the duty of the FO, had ‘’many things’’ on his mind and as they had the ‘’original file, we did not think it would get lost’’. All this points to a very lackadaisical attitude.

58. Ms. Makwanasi stated that she submitted the full file to the book keeper and provided a long rendition as to why she did not receive a receipt/checklist. In a strange turn of events and contrary to the evidence of the applicant and Mr. Ramotata, Ms Makwanasi stated that  she indeed made a back up file that was at the office of the applicant.

59. The applicant  and Mr. Ramotata were referred to the independent auditors report (Bundle B pages 15 – 17) and the disclaimer (page 18) signed by them and the chairperson of the SGB. This report inter alia stated that no supporting documents were provided for the expenditure ( in charge 2) and that only bank statements were received. This report also stated that financial records were not provided. The signed disclaimer is an acknowledgement that the information contained in the report (pages 15-17) are correct.

60. Allegations 1 & 2 refers respectively to submitting bank statements and not providing supporting documents for certain listed transactions. The evidence shows that indeed only bank statements were submitted and that there were no supporting documents for the transactions listed in charge 2.

61. The applicant’s claim that the full file was submitted to the book keeper/auditor where it ‘got lost’’ was fabricated as was the version that documents were destroyed in a fire, thus preventing the creation of a back- up.  The applicant failed to act as a prudent accounting officer would by delegating her duty to submit financial documents to the bookkeeper/auditor to the FO. This is further exacerbated by the utter failure to follow up if indeed such was done by the FO, until such time as she was alerted by the respondent that their financial records are outstanding.

62. The applicant, treasurer and SGB chairperson signed the disclaimer accepting the auditors report that inter alia stated that no financial records or supporting documents were provided but only bank statements.

63. The evidence rendered on behalf of the respondent’s witnesses were that the applicant was the accounting officer of the school and the representative of the respondent on the SGB. It was testified that as such she was responsible amongst others to provide financial records that includes supporting documentation for all payments on an annual basis to the bookkeeper/auditor (and not the FO). Evidence was rendered that only bank statements were submitted and no supporting documents for the payments made (as listed in charge 1).

64. This evidence was confirmed by the applicant.

65. The applicant’s case revolved around her claim that somehow the full file (all financial documents and supporting documents) were submitted by the FO to the bookkeeper where it got lost. She also submitted that despite having the full file, no back up was made as documentation were destroyed in a fire. I have dealt with this claim and stated that such makes no sense. How could there be a full file in March 2022 but a claim that documents were destroyed in September 2021, thus necessitating the submission of only bank statements and no supporting documents?

66. The two witnesses of the applicant also did not aid her case. The treasurer (Mr Ramotata) could only relay what he was told by the applicant and the FO (Ms. Makwanassi). He stated that ‘’as far as he could recall’’ all payments were done with supporting documentation. No details were given to support a claim that such occurred when payments were made to the entities listed in allegation 2.

67. Ms. Makwanasi attempted to confirm the applicant’s version that documents were lost at/by the book keeper. She rendered a long explanation as to why , on the day she allegedly delivered the documents, she was not given a receipt/checklist of what was submitted. She also claimed that she did not follow up due to the ‘’promise’’ that the book keeper would phone her. Although it was not her duty to submit financial records, she was tasked to do so by the applicant. Did she upon her return report to the applicant that she was not provided with a receipt/checklist? If so, what action was taken to ensure that the documents were indeed given to the correct person?. It seems from the evidence that neither the applicant nor the FO did anything until such time as the respondent by way of Mr. Madumo, the Assistant Director responsible for school finances alerted the applicant that something was amiss. Mr. Madumo stated that during January they would follow up with the book keeper to determine if financial records where submitted and if not, they follow up with the school. One such school was Mafumbuka and  due to the non-compliance, a team visited the principal. Later the matter was escalated and he became involved  and visited the principal around June.  He stated that he then informed by the principal (applicant) that the books were lost and was told ‘’many stories’’ that he tried to make sense of.

68. The proverbial nail in the coffin of the applicant’s case was the fact that she, the treasurer and the chairperson of the SGB signed the disclaimer that formed part of the auditor’s report wherein it was recorded that no supporting documentation was provided for the payments (listed in allegation 2), that only bank statements were provided and that no financial statements were provided. When the applicant and Mr, Ramotata were asked why they signed such damning document ( as this confirmed that NO proper documents were provided) which is in stark contrast to their claim that it was submitted but ‘’got lost’’, various answers were given. This ranged between ‘’’just signed it to acknowledge receipt’’ (applicant) and ‘’I signed but did not read it’’ (Ramotata).

69. The evidence submitted on behalf of the respondent ( and not disputed by the applicant) was that only bank statements were submitted (allegation 1) and no supporting documents for the payments in allegation 2. I have already indicated why I do not accept the explanation that it ‘’was lost’’ and ‘’got burned’’.

70. The applicant is thus guilty of allegations 1 and 2.

71. Allegation 4 dealt with the claim that the applicant was dishonest when she signed the pay sheets on behalf of Ms Mphahlele whilst she was not rendering service.

72. It was common cause that the applicant signed the paysheets by affixing her own signature opposite the name of Ms. Mphahlele.

73. The applicant claimed that she was not dishonest nor did she commit fraud/forgery because if she wanted to do so, she would have forged the signature of Ms. Mphahlele.

74. According to the applicant she only signed the pay sheets to acknowledge receipt thereof.

If this version is accepted one would have to wonder why such ‘’receipt’’ is always done opposite the name of Ms. Mphahlele who was the fourth name from the top. Furthermore, if the applicant only signed to acknowledge receipt of the pay sheet, this was done when she affixed her signature opposite her own name.

75. Evidence on behalf of the respondent was that the pay sheet must be signed by each educator on the list opposite his/her name to confirm that he/she rendered services and that the payslip have been received.

76. It is important to note that the pay sheet has two important notes at the end. One is a certification (that must be completed and signed by the principal) that states ‘’I hereby certify that unless otherwise indicated all persons listed on the payroll report are entitled to payment’’.

77. In order therefor to certify this, a principal must ensure that the educators whose names appear on the list, are indeed rendering services at the school and thus entitled to be paid.

78. The second note states ‘’all persons who received salaries by cheque/electronically must sign on the payroll for receipt of their cheques/salary advises’’.

79. This means that each educator must personally affix his/her signature on the payroll to confirm receipt of the cheque/salary advice which would indicate also that indeed they are at school and rendering services.

80. Was Ms Mphahlele at school, rendering services and thus entitled to be paid?

81. The applicant testified that she knew that Ms. Mphahlele was declared in excess/additional at the school  and removed (from Mafumbuka). This alone shows that by signing the payroll the applicant was dishonest as she could not certify that Ms Mphahlele was entitled to be paid as she was not at the school. Due to not being at the school Ms. Mphahlele could not sign the pay payroll  to sign for receipt of her salary/cheque advise. The applicant signing on her behalf created the perception that Ms. Mphahlele was at school, rendering services and entitled to be paid.

82. The applicant contended that Ms. Mphahlele was transferred to another school whereas it was submitted on behalf of the respondent that such transfer never occurred as the process was not followed to effect such.

83. Even if accepted that there was such transfer, the applicant could not certify on the payroll that Ms Mphahlele was entitled to be paid nor could Ms. Mphahlele sign for her salary/cheque advice as she was not at Mafumbuka.

84. Detailed evidence was given on behalf of the respondent relating to the process to be followed in the event of a transfer and that such was not done by Ms. Mphahlele. They also referred to numerous emails sent to the applicant wherein clarity is sought regarding the position of Ms. Mphahlele.

85. Various emails were sent during the period June 2023 to August 2023 without any response from the applicant. At this stage Ms. Mphahlele had been paid since January 2023. Only on 22 August 2023 is there is an email response from the applicant who then attached documents to the mail. The one is a ‘’deemed dismissal’’ letter sent to Ms. Mphahlele dated 18 August 2023 and signed by the applicant. The other is an undated letter apparently from Ms. Mphahlele  requesting a transfer.

86. The applicant testified that she had received a phone call from Mr. Mathe, the district official at North West who requested a release letter for Ms. Mphahlele that he wanted to submit on her behalf at Tshwane North due to their claim that the letter ‘’was missing in their office’’. She then phoned the IDSO (December 2022) and informed her of the request and was told to write the release letter and to involve the SGB. She was also told what information to put in the letter and mailed this letter ( D page 10) to the IDSO on the same day.

87. It is not clear from this letter (D page 10) to whom it was addressed as it merely states ‘’Dear sir’’, is not signed by either the applicant or the chairperson of the SGB and no proof was attached as to when, how and to whom it was sent. It only shows a date stamp from the school dated 30 December 2022.

88. The evidence on behalf of the respondent was that the process/policy regarding a transfer was that the educator who wished to transfer, had to approach his/her Principal by way of a written request to be transferred. In the event of a provincial transfer such letter must be addressed to the HOD if the transfer is from one province to another. If such is not done, and the educator ‘’release him/herself’’ such is regarded as a discharge.

89. The respondent witnesses further submitted that there was not an approved transfer  due to the lack of documentation. It was also stated that the applicant as Principal  ( and accounting officer) was to manage the school  and cannot claim ignorance of the whereabouts of her educators nor state that she ‘’did not know what to do’’ and as Principal is aware of the transfer process to be followed. This knowledge of the process is clear from the applicant’s letter (Bundle D page 10) and as she had been involved previously in transfers, one of which was when Ms. Mphahlele was transferred to Mafumbuka. 

90. The evidence regarding allegation 4 shows that the applicant was aware that Ms. Mphahlele was not rendering services at Mafumbuka. By signing the pay sheets on behalf of Ms. Mphahlele (albeit using her own signature) she created the false impression that Ms. Mphahlele was at the school, rendering services and thus had the right to be paid. This is indeed dishonest.

91. No evidence was submitted (by way of all relevant and required documentation) that Ms. Mphahlele was transferred and the respondent’s evidence that such amounts to a discharge is thus accepted. This is confirmed in the belated letter from the applicant (bundle C page 21) dated 18 August 2023, eight months after Ms. Mphahlele left Mafumbuka.

92. The applicant is thus guilty of allegation 4.

93.  Due to the evidence that there was no official transfer as per the policy, Ms Mphahlele had indeed absconded a fact ( as stated) that was only reported 8 months later.

94. It follows that the applicant is guilty of allegation 3.

95. The respondent had to prove, on a preponderance of probabilities that the applicant was guilty of the four (4) charges levelled against her.

96. This they succeeded in doing.

97. Was dismissal the appropriate sanction?

98. In Sidumo v Rustenburg Platinum Mines Ltd & Others (2007) 28 ILJ 2405 (CC) the court stated as follows in paragraphs 78 & 79:

(78) In approaching the dismissal dispute impartially, a commissioner will take into account the totality of circumstances. He or she will necessarily take into account the importance of the rule that had been breached. The commissioner must of course consider the reason the employer imposed the sanction of dismissal, as he or she must take into account the basis of the employee’s challenge to the dismissal. There are other factors that will require consideration. For example, the harm caused by the employee’s conduct, whether additional training and instruction may result in the employee not repeating the misconduct, the effect of dismissal on the employee and his or her long service record. This is not an exhaustive list.

(79) To sum up. ’In terms of the LRA a commissioner has to determine whether a dismissal is fair or not. A commissioner is not given the power to consider afresh what he or she would do, but simply to decide whether what the employer did was fair. In arriving at a decision, a commissioner is not required to defer to the decision of the employer. What is required is that he or she must consider all relevant circumstances’’.

99. In Department of Home Affairs and another v Ndlovu and others (2014) ILJ 3340 (LAC) it was held that in order to prove that the sanction of dismissal was appropriate the employer must present evidence to prove the breakdown in the employment relationship. Such evidence is not necessary where the breakdown is apparent from the nature of the offence and or the circumstances.

100. The detailed charges levelled against the applicant are set out in paragraph 8 (supra)

101. The applicant was the Principal of Mafumbuka Primary School since 2014, and an educator since 1991.

102. As Principal she was the respondent’s representative at the SGB, a member of the schools financial committee (with the treasurer and chairperson of the SGB) and as such the accounting officer. Her duties amongst others related to financial compliance.

103. Allegations 1 and 2 directly related to her duties and responsibilities and the evidence shows her utter lack of compliance. The evidence shows a principal who delegated her duties, displayed a rather lackadaisical attitude and when brought to book, made up various versions to exonerate herself.

104. Allegation 4 relates to dishonesty and the applicant’s actions in creating the false impression that Ms. Mphahlele was at school, rendered services and was entitled to be paid. This whilst knowing that she had not been at school since January 2023. The false impression led to the payment of salaries over a period of 8 months to a person who did not work.

105. The rule/s breached relate to serious misconduct in that the applicant’s actions were dishonest (allegation 4) and led to a financial loss (although not charged for the loss). The rules breached as contended in allegations 1 & 2 also amount to serious misconduct, given the applicant’s position, her duties and responsibilities and the trust placed in her to execute such in a capable fashion.

106. The importance of the rules revolve around the protection of respondent and the school that the applicant had to manage.

107. The misconduct of the applicant infringed on this.

108. The rules further exist to ensure that the respondent and the school operates, and to avoid actions that impact negatively on the respondent and the school.

109. The applicant was Principal and had been in this position since 2014 and an educator since 1991. She was placed in a position where a high premium of trust was placed on her to execute her duties in a competent manner and to protect the respondent and the school she was responsible for. She had to comply with all rules applicable to ensure this but failed to do so.

110. The applicant did not dispute the existence of the rules, nor its importance, validity/reasonableness or the consistent application of discipline.

111. The applicant showed no remorse and constantly proclaimed her innocence, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. This show that the applicant has no moral compass, failed to understand her misconduct and the impact thereof on the respondent and the school she had to manage.

112. Based on the position of trust that the applicant occupied, the seriousness of the offences, the failure to accept this and to show true remorse, I am not convinced that a lesser sanction would have rectified the errant behaviour.  The applicant had been employed for as principal since 2014 and as educator since 1991. She was fully aware of and trained in her duties, responsibilities and the respondent’s policies and procedures and her claim that ‘’Principals are not trained’’, is just not true.

113. It is also clear from the actions of the applicant and the arguments raised on behalf of the respondent that the misconduct that led to the applicant’s dismissal fairly attracts the sanction of dismissal as such destroyed the trust relationship beyond repair. Evidence was also led that the failure to provide financial and other documents, resulted in an unfavourable auditors finding. It was submitted that the risk of this is that the school can lose its allocation for services/LTSM and can become a section 20 school, where the HOD would manage its budget. The school was placed under administration until such time as the respondent can capacitate the SGB.

114. In considering the totality of circumstance and the quoted cases it is my view that the applicant, who was in a position of trust by virtue of the nature of the misconduct, destroyed the relationship of trust beyond repair.

115. The sanction of dismissal was therefore appropriate on allegations 1, 2 and 3.

116. Section 18(1)(ee) of the Employment of Educators Act, 76 of 1998 (as amended) stipulates that ‘’an educator must be dismissed if they are found guilty of committing an act of dishonesty’’

117. It follows from this section that if found guilty a chairperson/Commissioner must dismiss/confirm the sanction of dismissal.

118. Allegation 4 dealt with dishonesty and based on the above, the sanction of dismissal was appropriate

Award

119. The dismissal by the respondent, the Department of Education Gauteng, of the applicant, Ms Elsie Hlabangane, was substantively fair.

120. The dispute is subsequently dismissed.

Signed at Pretoria on 09 May 2025          

      ELRC Commissioner       E Maree