Panelist: Jonathan Gruss
Case No.: ELRC418-25/26EC
Date of Award: 14 April 2026

In the INQUIRY BY ARBITRATOR between:

Port Elizabeth TVET College
(Employer)

and

Vuyani Mahleza

(Employee)

Applicant’s representative: Mr Maupyi
Email

Respondent’s representative: Mr Ngqungwana
Email:

DETAILS OF HEARING AND REPRESENTATION

1. This matter was scheduled for an Inquiry by Arbitrator in terms of Section 188A of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 as amended (“the LRA”) read with Clause 32 of the ELRC Constitution: ELRC Dispute Resolution Procedures. The Inquiry was set-down and the proceedings were held on 18 August 2025, 22 October 2025, 26 November 2025 and 26 February 2026 at the premises of the Port Elizabeth TVET College in Gqeberha. The Employer, Port Elizabeth TVET College was represented by Mr Maupyi, a Labour Relations Officer. The Employee, Vuyani Mahleza was represented by Mr Ngqungwana a NUPSAW shop steward. The parties by agreement submitted written closing arguments on 10 March 2026.

CHARGES

2. The Employee was charges with misconduct relating to the following charges:
   Charge 1 : Sexual Harassment and Abuse of Authority (Serious Misconduct) that during or about the months of March and April 2025, whilst acting in your capacity as lecture at Dower Campus you made un solicited and sexually inappropriate remarks to YD , a first year NCV student under your academic supervision. These included comments that you look “sexy” and that you had “been thinking about her for a while.” you further suggested that you would not mind booking a hotel room for the two of you to be alone and stated that if she agreed to be intimate with you, you would boost her grades in assist her with school matters. This conduct constitutes sexual harassment and an abuse of authority you hold over students.

Alternative Charge 1A:
Unethical conduct and breach of educator – student boundaries in that you made personal inappropriate and sexually suggestive propositions to a student in exchange for academic favour thereby compromising your integrity as an educator.

Charge 2: Constitute Sexual Harassment (Serious Misconduct)
That during or about the months of March and April 2025, you continue to act in a sexually inappropriate and harassing manner towards YD bar making further comments that she looked “very sexy” and expressing your admiration for a tattoo located on her right thigh. You suggested that you remove her shorts so that you could “have a better look,” this part of verbal refusal and visibly discovered. Insisted that it was “nothing funny” and pull her aside in an attempt to downplay who objection. This conduct demonstrates a persistent pattern of sexual harassment and this regard for student boundaries.

Alternative Charge 2A:
Gross misconduct and indecent behaviour towards a student, in violation of your duty to create and maintain as safe and respectful learning environment, and in breach of acceptable professional conduct.

Charge 3:
That during or about the end of May 2025, in the presence of your class at Dower Campus, you instructed a female student, Ms TD , to stand up in front of her classmates and to turn around, so that the class could ” admire her body” because she is ” beautiful.” you made this request without a consent and claimed it was for demonstration purposes. The act was degrading and inappropriate, and it undermine the student’s dignity and right to a safe academic environment.

Alternative Charge 3A:
Unprofessional classroom conduct in that you used your position in publicly objectifying a student in front of her peers, thereby creating a humiliating and unsafe environment inconsistent with your obligations as lecturer.

3. The employee pleaded not guilty to all charges and provided no explanation as to his plea.

SURVEY OF EVIDENCE

4. Section 138(1) of the LRA provides that the commissioner may conduct the arbitration in a manner that Commissioner considers appropriate in order to determine the dispute fairly and quickly, but must deal with the substantial merits of the dispute with the minimum of legal formalities. This is a brief summary of evidence considered as provided for in terms of Section 138(7)(a) relevant to the dispute at hand and does not reflect all the evidence and arguments heard and considered in deciding this matter.

EVIDENCE BY EMPLOYER

5. Ms YD testified under oath to the following effect.

5.1 She had been a student at Dower since January 2025 and she’s currently studying transport and logistics. The Employee was a transport and logistic lecture and he only taught her one module, someone else took over from him. She respected the Employee and he was a good lecture who knew his subject. The Employee made her feel uncomfortable, the comments he made and the way he made these comments inside the class made her also feel uncomfortable. Outside school she had no relationship with the Employee.

5.2 The first incident, the remark he made to her was in class. He commented that she looks sexy and he likes what she was wearing that day. She informed the Employee that he made her feel uncomfortable and did not like what he was saying to her. The Employee indicated to her that he had been observing her for some time and he want to bring this to her attention. The Employee said to her that he found her attractive and suggested that they should meet off campus, even go to a hotel, she would benefit by getting good grades. She refused his proposition and reported this in confidence to Ms Randall who was also a transport and operations lecturer. She also spoke to Mr Ruiters who taught her mathematics. Mr Ruiters was friendly with the Employee. She asked him for his personal input on the matter and she explained to him what occurred and he responded that this is something that happens regularly on campus. Mr Ruiters advised her to take this up with the departmental head, Ms van Wyk. The Employee when making these comments indicated that he cannot help it, this is how he feels. Ms van Wyk indicated that she would do something about it. This occurred during the first semester between March and April 2025.

5.3 A week or two after the first incident she took paperwork to the G block office. When she dropped off the papers the Employee was in the office and made a comment about her tattoo on your right thigh. He said that it looks very nice and he would like to have a closer look, she refused. The Employee then said that it would not be anything funny. He said that he just wanted to admire the tattoo. She responded to him no and indicated that she did not feel comfortable with him having a closer look. The employee approach her tugging on her jean shorts and said that he wanted to have a better look. This was closed to her private region so she did not want him to have a better look at the tattoo. She felt afraid in that she was previously in a similar incident that traumatised her. She did return to the Employee’s class in that she want to receive her test.

5.4 She told the Employee that she was not happy with the way he was treating her. As it relates to the incident involving Ms TD, they were both in the class and the Employee requested Ms TD to stand up. Ms TD then inquired from the Employee as to the reason why she should stand up. The Employee then requested Ms TD to stand next to her desk. Ms TD stood there for about 10 minutes. Ms TD was told by the Employee that she must turn around in a circle, while Ms TD did this, the Employee told all male students in the class that they must look at Ms TD’s body and they must admire Ms TD’s body in that she was sexy. She can recall that Ms TD was wearing a tight outfit. She and Ms TD discussed this incident and Ms TD indicated to her that she felt very uncomfortable and Ms TD started to question her own attire she was wearing to College.

5.5 Under cross examination, the witness indicated that she is a bubbly person, strong-willed and she is a person who speaks her mind. She joined the choir however after the incident she stopped attending choir practices. She was on the SRC and was also the class rep. This was only in the first year. The offer for sexual favours were made at the beginning of the year. It was suggested to the witness that she would go up to male lecturers, go close to them and would do flirtatious things to them. This made other staff became uncomfortable. The witness disagreed with this.

5.6 It was further suggested to the witness that she came up to Mr Vama and she came close to him and another student video recorded her without her consent and the witness then became angry. The witness indicated that she approached Mr Vama in that she had missed an examination and wanted to discuss a medical issue that caused her to miss the examination. She admitted that she was angry when the student recorded her. It was further suggested to the witness that Mr Vama told the Employee’s representative that there was an incident where the witness sat in front of him, wearing a short skirt and he felt so uncomfortable that he got up and moved. The witness indicated that she was unaware of this incident. It was further suggested to the witness that Mr Vama did not want to get involved in that he was scared of losing his job.

5.7 It was also suggested to the witness that she used to flirt with the Employee and he ignored her and did not respond to her advances. That is why it was suggested that this was the reason why the witness laid a complaint against the Employee. The witness reiterated that she knew nothing about this. As to Ms D, it was suggested that the Employee addressed Ms D about her behaviour and corrected her in front of the class. It was further suggested that Mr D was never told to stand up. What the Employee told her was that the Employee was her lecturer and she was his student. Furthermore, Ms D came to the class with a new hairstyle. The witness indicated that she was unaware of this.

5.8 It was finally suggested to the witness that the Employee has no knowledge of him grabbing the witnesses when he was standing next to her. It was further suggested that the witness put her hands on the Employee shoulder. The witness indicated that she did not agree with the suggestion and she had no reason or benefited by making these allegations. The witness indicated that she was 23 years old.

6. Ms Winifred Kiewiets testified under oath to the following effect.

6.1 She is employed by the Employer as a campus manager for the Dower College and has been at the College for last 32 years. The Employee is a temporary level I lecturer and was appointed after Covid. The Employee reported to Ms van Wyk a senior lecturer as well as to the HOD, Mr Cilliers. The employee had a second fixed term contract. He is the accountable officer for that campus and also the principal of Dower College. He had a very good working relationship with the Employee and the Employee was an excellent choirmaster. The Employee loves to sing. She experienced no academic teaching problems with the Employee.

6.2 The only matter concerning the Employee dealt with a complaint from the HOD in 2023. The complaint came from the parents of a learner, relating to their daughter. The daughter felt uncomfortable in that when she came to fetch her marks, the Employee showed the learner a picture he had of her on his phone. She reported the incident to her parents. She had a meeting in the month of May 2023, where he discussed the incident and requested a written statement from the Employee. They then referred the complaint to the HR with regard to harassment. They did have a session with the Employee where they invited him to the office to discuss the allegations. They discussed the harassment policy with the Employee. They informed the Employee of an informal disciplinary hearing.

6.3 On the date of the informal disciplinary hearing the parents represented their daughter. The outcome of the informal disciplinary hearing resulted in the Employee apologising to the parents of the learner. The Employee was cautioned that there should not be another incident. Thereafter, they decided to plan workshops for gender-based violence. At the date of the disciplinary hearing they went through a document, Code of Good Practice on the prevention and elimination of harassment in the workplace. The student was unhappy in that the Employee had the student’s WhatsApp profile photograph on his phone. She became aware of the current matter when the allegations were reported to her by the HOD Mr Cilliers. There was a voice recording. There were 2 statements of student’s who were very unhappy about the incident involving the Employee. He is a bit disappointed that it happened again. He only knows the Employee relating to the working relationship he had with him.

6.4 Under cross examination, it was explained to the witness concerning the WhatsApp profile photograph that the Employee like the dress that the student was wearing and he wanted to make use of the dress to use in making dresses for the choir.

EMPLOYEE’S EVIDNECE

7. Ms AS testified under oath to the following effect.

7.1 She is a mother of 3 and is currently engaged in studies are Dower College. She is studying Transport and Logistics. She is busy with her first year studies that started in January 2025. She knows YD from a class that they both study transport and logistics at Dower College. They were very close friends at the beginning of the year. They used to phone each other daily. She started a prayer and worship group at the College and she asked YD to join the group, YD declined saying that she would rather go to hell. There was a strike at the College and she would be in the class and Yasmin would be outside with the strikers demonstrating. She decided to remove herself from Yasmin although they never had a disagreement. She just started with a new group of friends.

7.2 There was an incident, where YD went to Mr Hahleza, to speak to him. Yasmin was facing him and she took a video of Yasmin in that Yasmin was flirting with Mr Hahleza. One of the other students who is also friends with YD informed YD that she had taken a video of YD. When they went to the English class, Yasmin came to her and confronted her about video recording she made. YD told her about the POPI Act. She told YD to leave her alone and thereafter she had nothing to do with her. Mr Hahleza acted very professionally when Yasmin was busy flirting with him. In class, YD is a very outspoken person and some lecturers did not like that.

7.3 On a question as to how YD behaviour between female and male lecturers, she explained that Yasmin would not go up to female lecturers unless she had an assignment in her hand. Mr Hahleza spoke to her and he told her that he felt very uncomfortable with Yasmin in that she sat in the front of the class with her legs open. He indicated that he felt uncomfortable and had to move to the back of the class. As to YD’s behaviour towards the witness and other students, the witness felt that Yasmin acted inappropriately in that she wore “crop tops” and “shorts” to class. Mr Ruiters made a comment about YD and TD in that it was cold and they were wearing crop tops and shorts. In one of the economy classes, they had to come dressed as if they were going to a job interview. YD came dressed in a crop top and in jeans wearing high heels. They even made a video, the lecturer was not in the class and YD in front of the class did the catwalk and leaning over the chair, that was provocative and sexually seductive.

7.4 Yasmin was also involved in student politics. Yasmin wanted to draw up a petition against the ISAL lecturer in that she did not give them enough time to complete the assignment. Whereas, she had already finished. The petition did not go further and Ms van Wyk did speak to the lecturer and told her that she should give them more time to finish the assignment. TD did not speak a lot, she does not do well in her studies. TD is a person from her expression you will know that she does not like you. The other reason why she decided not to be friends with D in that D’s boyfriend is a taxi driver. They wanted her to wait for TD’s boyfriend’s taxi. She declined to wait and needed to get home for the children.

7.5 On a question about an incident where D spoke to Mr Hahleza about a lesbian lecture and this made Mr Hahleza feel uncomfortable. The witness responded that she was present on the day, Mr Hahleza was sitting on the table and she is not sure what D said about the lecturer but Mr Hahleza appeared not to be happy about that. The incident in question did not happen in class it happened outside and TD was told that he (Mr Hahleza) did not like her speaking about the other lecturer. On a question as to the relationship between YD and TD, the witness explained that YD is the leader.

7.6 On a question as to how the witness knows Mr Hahleza, the witness responded that she does not know him that well, he was very good at his job and she always got high marks from him before he left. The witness indicated that YD always thinks she’s a cleverer student whereas her marks are higher than YD’s. YD got 70%, 80% and 90% whereas she got higher marks than YD. YD did not tell her at first about the incident so what happened was that YD, herself would speak to each other daily she did not know about the incident. She only found out about student when YD was speaking to Ms Randall in the corner. When she confronted YD, she enquired why YD did not tell her about the incident. YD responded that Mr Hahleza was her favourite lecturer. She knows YD and YD would have told her immediately and she would have supported her.

7.7 Concerning an incident involving TD and her boyfriend, TD had told YD about the incident. YD phoned her and told her about it. She was concerned with that in that YD could have told others about her personal secrets. On a question as to how she had been treated by lecturers and staff members when it came out that she will be testifying for Mr Hahleza, the witness indicated that she was afraid of being targeted. The first time that they came to the hearing she walked past TD and she had a feeling that people were talking. The campus manager also acted weird, Ms Kiewiets also asked her what was she doing there. The news spread up like fire. Ms van Wyk stopped her and told her that she is not a credible witness in that YD and her, were no longer friends. YD was always in Ms van Wyk’s office they were are always speaking about secret things. One a question concerning an incident where TD had a new hairstyle and TD sat down and Mr Hahleza told TD to stand up and told the people to look at her body in that she was beautiful. The witness responded that he does not know about the incident may be she was not in the class.

7.8 Under cross examination the witness was asked whether she knows what is meant to be impartial and objective, she responded yes. The witness indicated “I am the light and she is a darkness” with reference to YD.

8. Mr Vuyani Mahleza testified under oath to the following effect.

8.1 He had been at the PE College since January 2020 as a lecturer in transport and logistics. Before that he worked in schools and also worked at VW SA. He worked for VW for 15 years and 4. 9 years he also worked in Germany. That delayed him completing his B.Com qualification. After leaving VWSA he got employed by Absa Bank as a branch manager. He moved to sales and was later tars to work in Mthatha doing training.

8.2 As relates to charge 1 wherein it’s alleged that he said to YD that she looks sexy and that he had been thinking about her for a while and he would not mind booking a hotel room for him in her, these allegations he denies. He had always had a good relationship with all the students. His daughter used to study at the University Western Cape and she did not finish in that the lecturer called her in an indicated to her that he would give a good marks for sex. His daughter refused the advances.

8.3 He never commented indicating that YD was sexy, he never said that he was thinking about her and he never said that he would book a room for them. YD was a talkative person. He would encourage those who do not talk to talk. He cannot understand why YD would make such comments about him. He would never walk alone and always asked a male lecture to walk with him. Yasmin used to flirt with him, he would walk away or ignore her. He has been pushed away by some of his colleagues, by management. Yasmin has been used to make these remarks about him. Ms van Wyk called him in and said to him that they have to go to the campus manager’s office in that there were allegations made against him. Mr Cilliers the HOD for NCV said that should anyone try to sweep the case under the carpet he would report this to the Department. He always used to clash with Mr Cilliers.

8.4 On an occasion during exams he was invigilating and reported to his class. Mr Cilliers was standing down the hall, and whilst he was talking to the cleaner, Mr Cilliers shouted at him saying that his class was making a noise and enquired why he was not in his class and talking to the cleaner. He did not respond to Mr Cilliers. He then went to Mr Cilliers and told him after looking for him that he was the invigilator and therefore he was not supposed to be in the class. As to motive why the managers would be targeting him, one of his colleagues was taken into position without qualifications. He had friction with Mr Cilliers when he told Mr Cilliers that the way he spoke to him was not correct.

8.5 Racially the internships are given mostly to coloured lecturers and not blacks’ on-campus. The majority of the learners in the College black. As to the allegations that he told YD that he would boost her grades if she had sex with him, this he denies and indicated that YD was an A grade student. Concerning charge 2 that he continued to act in a sexually inappropriate manner towards Yasmin by making further comments that she looks sexy and expressed his admiration for her tattoo located on her right thigh this never happened. As a rule, he would not come to the office alone and will always bring someone with him. He would never have been in the office alone with Yasmin and would had moved out.

8.6 He cannot be intimate with his wife and experiencing erectile dysfunction problems. He has to get an injection that his wife gives him before becoming intimate. He would never expose himself to a college student when he has intimacy problems concerning the allegations concerning TD that he made her a stand up for 15 minutes so that all must admire her body. This never occurred. Him and TD had friction, TD made a comment about a colleague saying that she is a Moffie and not even attractive. He reprimanded the whole class. He could see that TD had an attitude at first and after he spoke to her, she turned to her old self. There was an incident concerning Ms Njokweni who came screaming, she was angry that TD was giving her attitude and was sleeping in a class. She had taken a photo of TD sleeping and he offered to speak to TD, to motivate her not to sleep. He never asked TD to stand up for 15 minutes. TD had arrived late with others and she was wearing a different hairstyle. He commented about her hair and said to her that it looks very nice.

8.7 Under cross examination, the Employee agreed that making comments as set out in the charge sheet would be inappropriate. The Employee further agreed that a lecturer found guilty of the charges that he is faced should be remove from teaching students. It was suggested to the witness that his representative had told TD not to come testify. The Employee indicated that he had no knowledge of this. The Employee acknowledged that his representative was on the campus talking to people about his case. It was further suggested to the Employee that his representative had told Ms TD’s not to testify and she must not answer her phone. The Employee indicated that he had no knowledge of this. The Employee indicated that all his colleagues put YD up to falsely implicate him.

8.8 In 2023 while sitting in his office 2 coloured girls came to him to check on their marks. He could see on the WhatsApp group one of the girls wearing a ballroom dress. As the conductor of the choir, he had to submit a uniform to the college to make. He indicated to the girl who was in the photo wearing the dress if he could keep the photo. He was then called into the office alleging to sexually harass the girl. He was asked whether he needed a representative from SADTU. He apologised and that ended their. Everyone knew about the incident. The Employee was asked that when Yasmin testified it was never put to her that she is flirtatious. The Employee indicated that he does not know why it was not put to YD. The Employee indicated that Mr Cilliers said that he would make example of one of the lecturers and that is why this is happening to him now. It was further put to the Employee that the hairstyle issue concerning TD was never put to YD when she was cross examined.

9. Ms JK testified under oath to the following effect.

9.1 She is currently level III student at the PE College, Dower campus and she started studying Transport and Logistics last year January 2025. YD she knows, she arrived later in February / March 2025. They were in the same class. They were friends to each other. She would share personals stuff and experiences with Yasmin. Yasmin is driven, she would not mind throwing the next person under the bus. Yasmin is too ambitious. In class she is a bubbly person and she sees her as an attention seeking person.

9.2 YD asked Mr Vungwana a question and had her hands on him. Ms Schabe took a video of YD standing at the back posing at Mr Vungwana and this was inappropriate. YD dressed inappropriately, wearing short skirts or pants. On a question about TD making a comment about a lecturer, to Mr Mahleza, she was present and was busy with her books. Mr Mahleza spoke to Yasmin before the class. Concerning charge 3 involving TD standing up in front of her classmates and Mr Mahleza instructing her to do so that the class could admire her body, she never witnessed the incident. What she did witness a few days after that is Mr Mahleza correcting YD in front of the class. YD had a new hairstyle and her hair was dyed black. Mr Mahleza asked YD if it was her own hair and she responded it was. Concerning charge 1 comments allegedly made by Mr Mahleza to YD, YD is an outspoken person and had this happened the whole campus would have known. YD’s grades are good they are better than hers. What YD told her in private that she prefers Zulu men in that they are more experienced in the bedroom.

10. Mr Mlindi Christian Velapi testified under oath to the following effect.

10.1 He is a student at Dower College doing N5 in Public Management. The Employee is one of his lectures who lectured him in public finances. He knows YD. Regarding the KFC incident before that day he had R111 000.00 in the plastic bag. This lady, YD asked to borrow money from him and he said no to her. They had 4 people having KFC. This lady Yasmin said to her friend that she is going to get him, Mr Mahleza in that he went to KFC without her. This was said in Afrikaans. He then enquired from YD what she meant and she refused to respond and walked off with her friends.

10.2 Under cross examination, the witness indicated that he did not discuss this with the Employee. As far as he is concerned YD cannot be harassed in that she is always naked. She does not wear panties. You can just give her R50 and she will have sex with you. This is what he gets from the attitude and the way she dresses. The female lecturers are traumatised because of YD’s behaviour. YD’s behaviour as far as he was concerned was an invitation.

ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT

11. The Employee has been charged with 3 charges of misconduct, charge 1 sexual harassment and abuse of authority in that during the period March and April 2025 the Employee while acting in his capacity as a lecturer at Dower Campus, made unsolicited and sexually inappropriate remarks to Ms YD, a first year NCV student under his academic supervision. These allegations include comments “that she looked sexy” and “that the Employee had been thinking about her for a while” and the Employee suggested that he would not mind booking a hotel room for the 2 of them to be alone and stated that if she agrees to be intimate with him, you’d boost your grades and assisted with school matters. The second charge relates to continued sexual harassment wherein it is alleged that during the months of March and April 2025 the Employee continued to act in a sexually inappropriate harassing manner towards YD by making a further comment that she looks “very sexy” and expressed his admiration at her tattoo located on her right thigh. The Employee suggested that she remove her pants so that he could “have a better look” despite her verbal refusal and visibly discomfort. The Third charge concerns inappropriate and degrading conduct in the class in that during or about the end of May 2025 in the presence of her class at Dower campus the Employee instructor the female student, Ms TD to stand up in front of her classmates and turnaround, so that the class could “admire her body” because she’s beautiful.
12. The only eyewitness presented by the Employer is YD who testified about all 3 incidences although the 3rd incident witnessed by her involved treatment to TD. It was suggested to the Employee that his representative (Sangolinye Ngqungwana) told Ms TD that she must not come in to testify and she must not answer her phone. This in some way explains the absence of Ms TD as a witness. However, whether there was actual tampering of a witness that is a concern that needs to be thoroughly investigated by the Employer to determine if there are any such truths in these allegations. I found YD to be credible and a strong witness. It is unfortunate that the Employee’s witnesses versions were never put to her under cross examination. The allegations as relates to YD was supported by own testimony. The first and second allegation, or the incidents occurred in private or not in the presence of any witnesses. The first is a proposition of wanting by the Employee to book a hotel room for them both and in return he would boost grades and assisted with school matters. The second allegation stems from the Employee admiring YD’s tattoo high up on her thigh and wanting to see it. Wanting YD to remove or move the shorts so that he could see the entire tattoo. Yasmin testified that she did not want to do this in that the attached to was near to her privates. She testified that the Employee kept on pulling at her short pants. The Employee denies allegations and testified that it never occurred. The Employee testified that he would not make such advances to a college student in that he experiences intimacy problems with his wife and he even produced Males Clinic international printout in his name showing him utilising the medication that is injected. The Employee even brought an apparatus to show how the medication is injected. I must comment in passing that I have no reason to doubt the intimacy problems that is in the form of erectile dysfunction for which he has to take medication in the form of an injection. The fact that the person suffers from erectile dysfunction does not mean that there is no desire for intimacy.
13. The Employee presented witnesses to present YD a bad light. They described her as flirtatious, acting inappropriately as to the manner in which she dresses and described her behaviour was in the class as sexually seductive and the person who likes to draw attention to herself. Unfortunately this type of evidence was not presented to YD when she was cross-examined in that these witnesses would testify against her. Mr Velapi’s evidence as it relates to the manner in which YD conducts herself present a picture that YD cannot be harassed in that she is always naked. Mr Velapi also testified that YD does not wear panties and that she is a person that you can give R50 and she will sleep with you. He also testified that female lecturers are traumatised by YD’s behaviour. The evidence tendered by the Employee’s witnesses more or less creates a motive why the Employee would have behaved as alleged towards YD. The evidence more or less creates a theme that YD was a flirtatious individual who like to pose for male lecturers and therefore she was inviting the attention she received as contained in charge 1 and 2. What does surprise me is that the evidence tendered by Mr Velapi that YD threatened to get back at the Employee in that he did not take her with him to KFC was never shared with the YD when cross-examined. Mr Velapi did not impress me as a reliable and an honest witness. I say this is that Mr Velapi is at the post retirement age and he was extremely evasive in explaining how it came about that he started studying at his age. Mr Velapi did admit that he was in the South African Police and he spent some time in prison. As relates to the third charge involving TD it is alleged that she was made to stand up in front of the class so that the class could admire body because she is beautiful. None of the Employee’s witnesses could testify witnessing the incident involving TD having to stand up in front of the class. None of the witnesses except for the Employee could not deny that this did not occur.
14. I do take note that this was not the first incident wherein the Employee had been accused of sexual harassment. He did provide an explanation why he had a profile photograph of one of this students on his phone. It appeared that the student was very upset when the Employee showed the student that he had a photograph of her that he got from her WhatsApp profile on his phone. This upset the student to such extent that she reported the incident to her parents and after the school’s intervention the Employee was made to apologise. This he did. Ms Kiewiets testified that she is upset in that the Employee transgressed again, sexually harassing students.
15. Considering the inherent probabilities and noting as relates to charge 1 and charge 2 it is YD’s word against that of the Employee. I find no logical reason why YD would fabricate or concoct a story that the Employee sexually harassed her when he suggested that he would get a room for them in that he would boost her grades should she sleep with him. The second allegations concerning the Employee admiring the tattoo and wanting to see more of it and suggesting that YD pulled down her shorts or move it aside so that he could see the entire tattoo. The Employee further pulled YD’s short pants wanting to see the tattoo. YD did not want to oblige the Employee in that it was too near to her privates. I’m therefore satisfied based on inherit probabilities of the case that the Employee is guilty of charge 1 on charge 2. As it relates to charge 3 concerning TD having to stand up in front of the class so that the class could admire her body in that she was beautiful. The evidence of YD is strong concerning this incident and I therefore accept that the version and the incident occurred as testified by YD is more probable than the denial presented by the Employee.
16. Having found the Employee guilty on all 3 charges the issue to be determined a sanction. All 3 charges of serious, the Employee conceded that the employee found guilty on charge 1 and 2 should not be permitted to continue teaching and therefore he accepts that such a transgression warrants dismissal as a sanction. As relates to charge number 3 the conduct of female student being forced to stand in front of the class so that everyone could admire her beautiful body is degrading, inappropriate undermines the dignity of the individual. In this case it was TD. The only sanction under the circumstances that is appropriate is that of dismissal.

AWARD

17. The Employee, Vuyani Mahleza is found guilty on:

17.1 Charge 1, Sexual Harassment and Abuse of Authority (Serious Misconduct) that during or about the months of March and April 2025, whilst acting in your capacity as lecture at Dower Campus you made un solicited and sexually inappropriate remarks to YD, a first year NCV student under your academic supervision. These included comments that you look “sexy” and that you had “been thinking about her for a while.” you further suggested that you would not mind booking a hotel room for the two of you to be alone and stated that if she agreed to be intimate with you, you would boost her grades in assist her with school matters. This conduct constitutes sexual harassment and an abuse of authority you hold over students.
17.2 Charge 2: Constitute Sexual Harassment (Serious Misconduct). That during or about the months of March and April 2025, you continue to act in a sexually inappropriate and harassing manner towards YD bar making further comments that she looked “very sexy” and expressing your admiration for a tattoo located on her right thigh. You suggested that you remove her shorts so that you could “have a better look,” this part of verbal refusal and visibly discovered. Insisted that it was “nothing funny” and pull her aside in an attempt to downplay who objection. This conduct demonstrates a persistent pattern of sexual harassment and this regard for student boundaries.
17.3 Charge 3: That during or about the end of May 2025, in the presence of your class at Dower Campus, you instructed a female student, TD, to stand up in front of her classmates and to turn around, so that the class could ” admire her body” because she is ” beautiful.” you made this request without a consent and claimed it was for demonstration purposes. The act was degrading and inappropriate, and it undermine the student’s dignity and right to a safe academic environment.

18. The Employee, Vuyani Mahleza is therefore dismissed on the charges as reflected in paragraph 17 with immediate effect from the Port Elizabeth TVET College.

Name: Jonathan Gruss
(ELRC) Arbitrator