IN THE EDUCATION LABOUR RELATIONS COUNCIL HELD AT TRAININ ACADEMY (DOKKIES) BOARDROOM
In the matter between
MTSHALI DUMISANI AARON Applicant
and
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION -KWAZULU NATAL Respondent
ARBITRATOR : AS Dorasamy
HEARD : 1 JULY 2024
DATE OF AWARD : 12 JULY 2024
SUMMARY : Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 – Section 192(1) – alleged unfair
dismissal
ARBITRATION AWARD
PARTICULARS OF PROCEEDINGS AND REPRESENTATION
1. This matter was set down for arbitration on the 1 July 2024, the evidence was completed at the Training Academy (Dokkies) Boardroom in Durban. This matter was under the auspices of the Education Labour Relations Council (ELRC). Mr Clement Mduduzi Kulati an advocate, represented the applicant, Mr Bhekumusa Stanley Hlela an attorney represented the Department of Education Kwa Zulu Natal. The parties were to submit written closing arguments by the 8 July 2024. The party’s submissions and the applicable provisions of the applicable circulars were considered when I arrived at my decision.
THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE
2. I am required to determine whether the respondent unfairly dismissed the applicant and dependent
thereon the appropriate relief may be determined.
THE BACKGROUND TO THE DISPUTE
3. The applicant was dismissed after a disciplinary hearing. He faced the following charges:
CHARGE 1
In that on or about 12 February 2014 to 12 December 2016 at or near Nkosiyethu Primary School, you failed to comply with or contravened this Act or any other statute, regulation or legal obligation relating to education and the employment relationship in that you failed to prevent irregular payments and unauthorized expenditure on grass cutting and or on 09 June 2014 the school procured a grass cutting machine amounting to R 11 200.00 which resulted in fruitless expenditure. You thereby contravened Section 18(1)(a) of the Employment of Educators Act 76 of 1998, as amended.
CHARGE 2
In that on or about 19 August 2014 at or near Nkosiyethu Primary School, you falsified records or any other documentation in that you inflated kilometres travelled from Nongoma to Mubadala and claimed that you travelled 1000 kilometres for the trip and or you travelled from Mubadala to Richard’s Bay and claimed that you travelled 500 kilometres for the trip. You thereby contravened Section 18(1) (aa) of the Employment of Educators Act 76 of 1998, as amended..
CHARGE 3
In that on or about 09 March 2015 at or near Nkosiyethu Primary School, you gave false statements or evidence in the execution of your duties in that you submitted a claim with fraudulent odometer reading that the opening odometer reading of Audi A4, 1.8 T at the beginning of the trip on 06 March 2015 was 63375 kilometres and closing kilometres were 66075.
CHARGE 4
In that on or about 7 September 2016 to 09 September 2016 at or near Nkosiyethu Primary School, you committed an act of dishonesty in that:
(a) You claimed that you travelled from Nongoma to Durban using your private vehicle, Audi A4, 1.8 T and claimed R 3 600.00 for the trip.
(b) On 08 September 2016 you claimed R 8 500.00 for transport.
(c) On 09 September 2016 you claimed R 3 600.00 as if you travelled from Durban to Nongoma using your own private vehicle, Audi A 4, 1.8 T whereas the school paid for the hired vehicle from Thrifty car rentals to be used by you from Richard’s Bay to Durban and back.
You thereby contravened Section 18(1) (e e) of the Employment of Educator’s Act 76 of 1998, as amended.
CHARGE 5
In that on or about 18 January 2014 to 20 July 2016 at or near Nkosiyethu Primary School, while on duty, you conducted yourself in an improper, disgraceful or unacceptable manner, in that you failed to provide invoices to substantiate the expenditure incurred in other instances payments were made without signed payment advices as a result the school has an unaccountable expenditure amount to R 277 646.41 as per schedule on page. You thereby contravened Section !8 (1) (q) of the Employment of Educators Act 76 of 1998, as amended.
CHARGE 6
In that on or about 12 June 2015 at or near Nkosiyethu Primary School, you wilfully or negligently mismanaged the school funds in that you made one or more of the following irregular payments:
(a) You issued a cheque for R 6 300.00 for the trip to Ms Masondo’s sister’s funeral in Johannesburg.
(b) You approved the payment of R 4 950.00 for the kitchen unit in your cottage.
(c) On 17 October 2014 you issued the cash cheque number 2235 for R 6 000.00 without supporting documents.
You thereby contravened Section 18 (1)(b) of the Employment of Educators Act 76 of 1998, as amended.
CHARGE 7
In that on or about 2014 to 2016 at or near Nkosiyethu Primary School you unjustifiably
prejudiced the administration, discipline or efficiency of the Department of Education or a school in that you failed to provide the auditor with the information of the Computer Project account that was with Nedbank as a result the Nedbank account was not audited and or you failed to disclose that the school had a Credit Account with Bidvest Walton and as a result the credit balances at the end of each financial year did not appear in the Audited Financial Statements. You hereby contravened Section 18 (1) (f) of the Employment of Educators Act 76 of 1998, as amended.
4. As a result of the delay intaking action against the applicant some of the witnesses passed away. The investigating officer had interviewed the deceased witnesses and his evidence will be considered and assessed for relevance.
5. The applicant did not attend the disciplinary hearing.
6. He was found guilty of all charges and dismissed.
RESPONDENT’S OPENING STATEMENT
7. The applicant committed the allegations and he was aware of what was expected of him but despite that he committed the offence or offences. The respondent received a tip off about fraud and investigated the matter.
8. The respondent is not prepared to take back the applicant.
APPLICANT’S OPENING STATEMENT
9. Briefly the applicant was the principal of Nkosiyethu Primary School hereinafter referred to as the school under Zululand district. He was dismissed on 14 June 2021 after his appeal was dismissed.
10. The school is a Section 21 school.
11. If the applicant was at the hearing he would have denied the charges. The applicant was dismissed on hearsay evidence.
12. He seeks retrospective re-instatement from date of dismissal. His last salary was R 47 179.69.
RESPONDENT’S CASE
SIYAMCELA MPAKUMPAKU
The salient aspects of his evidence are recorded below:
13. He is now employed by the National Prosecuting Authority under the asset forfeiture unit. Around 2015 he was employed by the Provincial Treasury as a corporate investigator.
14. He holds a national diploma in accounting and is a certified fraud examiner. He knows the investigation at the school. They collected documents from the school. He compiled the report. In the investigation he interviewed the applicant.
15. In respect of charge 2 ,the applicant claimed for transport of R4800. 00 from Nongoma to Mubadala return. On page 46 Bundle B is over R1000.00. In this claim 1000 kms single trip and Goggle maps indicate 98.8 Km. It is not the true reflection of the travelling claimed. He concluded that it was inflated. There was no approval before the trip and no readings before the trip and the SGB was to approve.
16. On page 47 the document does not have three signatures. The amount claimed is inflated.
17. In some cases, he did not use his car.
18. The applicant made fraudulent claims.
19. In respect of charge 3 not all persons signed as the amount is above R1 000.00.
20. In respect of charge 4 He did not record the correct mileage and the claim is not signed by three officials. Car hire Thrifty. There are no three signatures.
21. In respect of the car hire, he did not source quotations or prior approval from the SGB.
22. In respect of charge 6, payment of R4950.00 for kitchen units in his cottage. Treasury did not sign.
23. On page 162 there is a cash cheque for R 9000.00and not signed by treasurer. No supporting documents R9000.00 only for R4 800.00(page 164).
24. No cheques payable to cash may be issued according to the School Funding Norms Policy. The applicant was a signatory to the Bank account. On page 68, paragraph 11 no signatures…….blank cheque from school fund account.
25. Page 168 no signature of chairperson of the SGB.
26. Funeral expenses no signatures, teachers made contribution towards the trip. This was not a school function but a funeral of a relative of a teacher. Page 26 Bundle A the school fund monies must be used for educational purposes. No quotes for the transport.
27. Charge 7, 18(1)(f) page 170 Annual Financial Statements 2014-2015-2016 no audited statement for Computer Projects Account, no statement for Bidvest Waltons Audited Financial Statements.
Under cross examination he stated as follows:
28. He does not know section 14 of SASA. The school is on private property and the school belongs to the Roman Catholic church. The building was built by the church and not the Department of Education. He does not know about this part. He does not know who built the school.
29. The principal is not in charge of the SGB. He can advise not dictate to the SGB. The principal must report to the Department of Education about irregularities. Section 16A the Functions of the SGB, the principal advises the SGB.
30. The school was a section 21 school. He does not know the section 21 provisions. The SGB applies to the HOD for functions not the principal.
31. There were no three quotations. It was not approved by the SGB, there were no minutes.
32. Tabetha was the chairperson and he is deceased. The procurement was properly done in terms of the budget on a monthly basis. He spoke to Mr Tabetha but did not ask for a copy of the year plan.
33. The SGB is the accounting authority in the school. The principal is a member of the SGB and SMT.
34. They used EFT for payments. He did the payments and Mr Tabetha monitored
the bank transactions.
35. He did not charge any finance officers only the principal.
36. There was no transport policy and he was assisting with travelling. It is a boarding school.
37. He interviewed teachers on the excursion committee and the applicant was not a member of the excursion committee. There were five cheques for cash. The school paid for the SGB members who went on excursion with the children.
38. In respect of charge 7 the Nedbank account was not audited. There were three accounts. (Bundle A). He found two accounts. The computer account was not audited. The Nedbank account was opened during this period. The applicant denies that he opened any accounts. He found the accounts when he went to the school in 2011. He was a signatory of the Nedbank account. The Standard bank and Nedbank accounts were not audited.
39. The SGB has to audit the School Fund accounts. The school principal keeps the financial statements.
THE CHARGES
CHARGE 1 2012-2016
Grass cutting…………..fruitless expenditure. Two offences. Process to appoint the grass cutter
Bundle A
The machine had to be serviced and fixed if it breaks. The school suffered because the machine was not used for three years. The value of the machine depreciates. The school purchased the machine. The applicant failed to prevent irregular payments. Nongoma is a rural town. A list of grass cutting services in the area are used by the municipality.
40. The principal showed the area to be cut and the appointed service provider would cut it. Section 2 (A) of SASA (South African School’s Act) the school grounds are the responsibility of the SGB. The hostel is run by the church and the school fees are paid separately.
41. He read the agreement between the school and the church. Page 246 BB clause 12 the school occupies the whole grounds. There is a separation between the school and the church. The principal manages the school and the hostel is separately used by the children. The SGB cuts the grass of the school.
CHARGE 2 2014-2017
42. Page 46 Bundle B. Travelling to school and Circuit Court in Mubadala was 99 to 102 return, maybe 200 kilometres. The principal told him about the case of sexual assault. He did not pursue the matter. There were 23 learners molested.by the hostel supervisor.
43. He did not interview the applicant again after the intervention of the lawyer.
44. The SGB approved the incorrect claim.
45. CHARGE 3 Bundle BB Page 49..
Applicant claimed R 3000.00. There is no voucher or invoice and the claim did not follow procedures. There is no evidence that the trip took place.
CHARGE 4
The applicant travelled from Nongoma to Richard’s Bay and later missed his flight. On the 9
September 2016 his wife picked him up. This explanation was not given to him. His wife is not part of the school.
CHARGE 5 R 277 646.41
46. He denies the allegation. It was the responsibility of the SGB. He confirms receiving documents on various occasions. There were no invoices provided and he does not know if the goods were supplied. He did not check if the goods were delivered.
47. CHARGE 6
In 6 (a) paid from computer account, not from school fund and signatory was Mrs Adams and no statement taken from him.
48. In respect of BB page 159 payment from Computer Fund. Cheque for transport, pages 160-61, some teachers did not pay. R 6 300.00 not supposed to be taken from this account.
49. In respect of 6 (b) kitchen, units used by current principal. There were three quotes and approval granted by the Treasurer.
50. In respect of 6 (c) cash cheques not permitted.
51. CHARGE 7
Nedbank Account not audited. The SGB is the accounting authority. The principal had no role in that account.
52. During the Disciplinary Enquiry the applicant was not given a copy of the investigation report,
53. He did not know the applicant before the investigation.
54. On pages 163,166, 169 Bundle B cash cheques. The applicant signed all cheques.
NONTOBEKO MAGOSO
The salient aspects of her evidence are recorded below:
55. She presided in the matter. She decided not to grant the applicant legal representation. She did not rule on the recusal application because it was withdrawn. Mr Munge represented the applicant.
56. The employer presented its case. The allegation that she and the prosecutor travelled in the same car were denied because they travelled in different cars.
57. The proceedings were recorded but the computer had crashed.
58. In charge one there were no quotations and he was found guilty.
59. In charge 2 there was no evidence from the SGB who gave him authority to take the trips.
60. The matter was finalized on the 4 December 2020.
61. As per February 2021 she did not have any dealings with Mr Munge.
62. It was not raised about the delay in prosecution at the hearing.
Under cross examination she stated as follows:
63. The recording crashed and the recording was lost.
64. She is aware that Ms Nxumalo lost her mother during the proceedings and the matter in February 2020 was postponed. The applicant heard from Ms Nxumalo about the postponement.
65. The computer crashed and the notes were in boxes and water went into her office and the documents were thrown away.
66. Mrs Kunene was the financial officer of the SGB and she passed on. They sat for two days and she took notes.
67. Her office was flooded. They were asked to throw way the boxes.
68. She was not with Ms Nxumalo at Wimpy and they travelled separately from Pietermaritzburg to Ulundi.
APPLICANT’S CASE
SISA GODFREY EDMUND MDUNGE
The salient aspects of his testimony are recorded below:
69. He is a principal of a school in Ulundi and represented the applicant at the disciplinary hearing.
70. He applied for the presiding officer to recuse herself and a postponement. The presiding officer had previously accepted the medical certificate. The presiding officer insisted on proceeding. The application for postponement was refused. He saw Mr Opakapaka and told him he was leaving and he left,
71. The applicant was informed that he was dismissed. There were no other sittings.
72. The applicant was not present and he could not place versions because the applicant was not present.
CROSS EXAMINATION
Under cross examination he stated as follows:
73. He represented educators for more than 16 years.
74. The first medical certificate was produced and the matter was postponed. The applicant saw the doctor who gave him a leave for a long time.
75. The applicant was not available and he called him about his case
76. On the 6 October 2020 he appeared to finalise the preliminary issues of the applicant’s absence. The presiding officer dealt with the preliminary issues. She wanted the doctor but he was not brought to the hearing.
77. The presiding officer was not satisfied with the certificate and wanted the doctor to be present. He decided to leave after his application for postponement was refused because the applicant was not present.
78. He did not see them at Wimpy and knew that the matter was proceeding. He does not know what happened after he left.
79. There was no review application
80. He had the charge sheet and the employer’s bundles with the affidavits.
81. When he represented the applicant, he did not have the idea of the merits. The matter was postponed and they never got to start the matter.
82. The parents were complaining about the school’s finances not being handled properly. The district office appointed a person to investigate.
83. After he left the presiding officer asked to call the first witness.
APPLICANT’S CASE
DUMISANI AARON MTSHALI
The salient aspects of his testimony are recorded below.
84. He was working as the principal of the school before his dismissal. He was promoted firstly as Deputy Principal and then promoted as principal in January 2011. His date of termination is the 14 June 2021. He was a principal for 10 years.
85. THE CHARGES
CHARGE 1(…failure to prevent grass cutting)
R 11 200.00 fruitless expenditure) Section 18(1)(a). This was false because it was the SGB’s decision to save costs. They consulted the finance committee to do the process. They got quotations on the machine and it is still in existence and the investigator saw the machine in the storeroom.
86. On the 9 January 2014 other items were purchased.
87. The machine was purchased but it was hard to find someone to use it. The school cut the grass according to the need. He does not have powers above the SGB but is part of the SGB.
CHARGE 2
88. There was an urgent need to travel from school to Mubadala. The claim is for many occasions. He did 5 trips. He never taught Maths.
89. CHARGE 3
Fraudulent odometer readings. He used his own car because the school did not have a car. Maybe it was an error when he recorded it. He used his private motor vehicle and there was no place to record his odometer reading.
90. CHARGE 4
The SGB had a year plan and a committee will include one SGB member. On 7 September 2016 he travelled from Nongoma to Richard’s Bay. He had to sleep over because he had to collect a motor vehicle on the 9 September 2016.
He took a flight from King Shake airport to Johannesburg to inspect the place where the learners were going to sleep. The trip was in October 2016.
They ran errands around Richard’s Bay and Empangeni. They had to collect medication from the parents. The teachers would return the vehicle to Thrift.
He was delayed and paid R999.00 for the ticket.
91. CHARGE 7
Computer Project account, Nedbank account was opened before he arrived at the school. He knew about the account but it was not his duty but the SGB’s duty.
He failed to provide the auditor about the Computer Project Account and the Credit account, Bidvest Walton credit balances did not appear.
The Nedbank account was inherited from the previous principal. The governance unit used to monitor the funds.
The Bidvest Walton account, no monies were kept in this account. Inherited from previous principal.
92. CHARGE 6
There is evidence of cash cheques. The SGB took a decision to get the applicant to run the hostel. The renovation of his kitchen units cost R4 950.00. Cash cheques were issued by the SGB. He did not report the irregularity. Page 160 cash cheque issued.
93. CHARGE 5
The SGB had to account and the governance section came and audited the finances.
CROSS EXAMINATION
94. He did not testify at the disciplinary hearing.
95. He was a signatory to the FNB Account.
96. He signed cash cheques
97. He does not know when the funeral took place. The three quotations for the trip for the funeral were not produced.
98. The grass cutting machine was purchased by the school.
99. In respect of charge 3
The School Funding Norms say the kilometres must be recorded accurately. All trips were recorded in the log book. The approval must be made before the trip.
The kilometres were written incorrectly. He wrote it
100.In respect of charge 4
He did not receive prior approval for his trips.
101.In respect of charge 5, there is no prior approval document.
102. He confirmed that not all invoices and payments slips were given to the investigator. He did not
make copies for the SGB
103. He used Mr Miya and Mpanda for grass cutting. The machine was purchased but not used
because there was no skilled person to use it.
104. In respect of the kilometres he did not record accurately when using his private vehicle. There was
no logbook and the trips were not approved
.
CLOSING ARGUMENTS
105…The parties submitted written closing arguments were considered in arriving at my decision. The
parties must be complimented for submitting comprehensive arguments.
ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT
106. This matter relates to the alleged unfair dismissal of the applicant.
107. The applicant challenges the procedural and substantive aspects of his dismissal and believes
that he was unfairly dismissed and prays for retrospective re-instatement with back pay.
108. The respondent contends that dismissal was substantively fair. Further that dismissal was the
appropriate sanction considering the charges and the fact the applicant was found guilty of all
charges.
109. I have taken cognizance of the decision in Sweeney/ Transcash [2000] 6 BALR 712 (CCMA)
where the commissioner held that arbitration hearings constitute a rehearing de novo on the
merits. The award must accordingly be based on evidence led at the arbitration, not on the record
of the disciplinary hearing if necessary.
Further an arbitration is a new hearing which means that the evidence concerning the reason for
the dismissal is heard afresh before the arbitrator. The arbitrator must determine whether the
dismissal is fair in the light of the evidence admitted at the arbitration.
110. The arbitrator is not merely reviewing the evidence considered by the employer when it decided to
dismiss but to determine whether the employer acted fairly. This does not prevent the arbitrator
from referring to any enquiry record in so far as it is admitted as evidence in the arbitration.
111.In this matter it is clear from the submissions submitted by the parties that the following may be
reasonably gleaned.
112.The Code of Good Practice: Dismissal promotes progressive discipline, it distinguishes between
single acts of misconduct that may justify the sanction of dismissal and those that may do so
cumulatively. The Code identifies gross dishonesty, willful damage to property, endangering the
safety of others, assault and gross insubordination as examples of what may constitute serious
misconduct that may justify dismissal as a result of a single contravention.
113.In this matter it is clear from the submissions submitted by the parties that the following may be
reasonably gleaned.
The applicant was given a notice to attend a disciplinary hearing, but failed to attend the hearing
despite it being postponed previously and he was found guilty after a hearing and received his
letter of dismissal. He challenges the procedural and substantive aspects of the dismissal.
In terms of the guidance provided in the Avril Elizabeth Home for the Mentally Handicapped v
CCMA as per A van Niekerk AJ the following is of importance:
Where there is no established procedure in the work place the standard required is the one referred to in the Code. This requires no more than the following:
(a) The conduct of an investigation;
(b) Notification to the employee of any allegations that may flow from that investigation; and
(c) An opportunity, within a reasonable time, to prepare a response to the employer’s allegations with the assistance of a trade union representative or fellow employee; and
(d) Communication of the decision taken including the reason for the dismissal; and
(e) A reminder of rights to refer a dispute to the CCMA or to a bargaining council or to dispute resolution procedures established in terms of a collective agreement.
In deciding whether a procedure was fair commissioners should not adopt an overly technical
approach and should bear in mind that the purpose of the recommended procedure is to provide an
opportunity for dialogue and reflection regarding whether a fair reason for dismissal or some other
sanction exists.
114. In respect of the charges, the applicant was found guilty of all seven charges and dismissed. The Courts have held that “As long as the factual allegations made in the charge sheet or part of it, are proved, and as long as those factual allegations that have proved, constitute some form of misconduct in the workplace, the employee may be convicted of misconduct. (Woolworths v CCMA (LAC) 2011; NUM v CCMA (LC) 2011; FNB v CCMA (LC) 2010.
115 As a consequence of the above I believe that the procedural aspect of the dismissal to be fair as the presiding officer handed down a decision of dismissal.
116.The applicant was charged with acts of misconduct and was subjected to a disciplinary hearing.
117.The question arises whether the above-mentioned infractions/ misconduct are such that it
warrants dismissal.
118.Although it is the prerogative of the employer to set standards that the employee is expected to
render service it must do so in keeping with the guiding principles of the LRA.
THE RELEVANT LEGAL PRINCIPLES
119. It is trite law that the courts will only interfere with the employer’s decision if it is grossly unreasonable.
120. Prior to the Constitutional Court’s decision in the Sidumo- case the CCMA applied the “reasonable employer” test to determine whether a specific sanction, issued by an employer, was fair. The “reasonable employer” test provided to employers a lot of flexibility to dismiss employees for misconduct, as employer’s decision to dismiss were “protected” from scrutiny by the CCMA based on the Nampak and Country Fair Foods case
121. The Constitutional Court replaced the “reasonable employer”-test, which required a measure of deference to the decision of the employer, with that of the “reasonable decision maker”-test, which required an answer to the following question:
Is the decision reached by the commissioner one that a reasonable decision-maker could reach?
The CCMA will thus no longer merely approve the decision taken by employers. The Sidumo-case further warns employers and chairpersons about the dangers of adopting a strict, narrow approach to imposing the sanction of dismissal.
122. It is indeed the employer’s prerogative to set the rules applicable to his/her workplace according to its operational requirements.
123. Employers must remember, as was highlighted in the Sebotha- case, that the role of chairpersons is to ensure fairness, and not to merely approve the decision of the employer. Even though some chairpersons might be full-time employees of the employer, such persons are required to act as an impartial body when chairing a disciplinary hearing.
124. Van Niekerk AJ in the Avril Elizabeth Home- case was very critical about the “criminal justice” model of disciplinary proceedings and stated that the LRA recognized that “workplace efficiencies should not be unduly impeded by onerous procedural requirements.
APPLICATION OF THE LAW TO THE FACTS
125 The applicant faced seven charges, was found guilty and dismissed.
. The chairperson considered the evidence led and came to the conclusion that the applicant was guilty as charged. Thereafter she considered the applicable sanctions according to the Employment of Educator’s Act and pronounced a sanction of dismissal. The sanction is within the guidelines.
126. The applicant was the principal of the school for ten years. He would have attended workshops on the management of schools. There is a difference between the role and responsibility of the principal and the School Governing Body as recorded in the Employment of Educator’s Act.
127. In respect of the charges the applicant clearly did not understand his function as the custodian of the Department of Education. It is not acceptable that he deflects his shortcoming by criticizing and passing the blame on the SGB. He was expected to protect and implement the obligations of the Department of Education.
128. In respect of charge 1 he did not guide the SGB in respect of the procurement of the grass cutting machine. The requisite quotes were not sourced. The machine was purchased without the enquiry whether there was anybody who could use the machine. The machine was stored in the school and other service providers were sourced to cut the grass.
129. He is found guilty of this charge.
130. In respect of charge 2. The requisite three quotes and prior authority was not in place. He did not follow the procedures and did not document the correct mileage. He was supposed to record the mileage according to the policy.
131. He is found guilty of this charge.
132. In respect of charge 3 he did not provide reasons for the travel expenses and the mileage recorded is incorrect. The claim was fraudulent.
He is found guilty of this charge.
133. In respect of charge 4 also he did not keep accurate records of his trip and his explanations does not seem reasonable.
He is found guilty of this charge.
134. In respect of charge 5 the applicant made payments in contravention of the policy. There were no payment advices, quotations or invoices. These documents are necessary in terms of the policy and for proper auditing processes.
He is found guilty of this charge.
135. In respect of charge 6, funeral expenses. The school fund monies should not have been used. The applicant ought to have advised the SGB about this provision. It was not for education purposes. He did not report to the Department about deviations from the School Funding Norms and Standards. This was also the case of the improvement in respect of renovations to his kitchen unit.
136. He is found guilty of this charge.
137. In respect of charge 7 there is ample evidence that he did not monitor, supervise the school’s banking accounts. He allowed multiple accounts. Some of the accounts were not audited.
138. He is found guilty of this charge.
139. I see no reason to interfere with the findings and sanction of the presiding officer.
140. The finding and sanction are hereby confirmed.
141. The applicant is dismissed and not entitled to any relief.
AWARD
143 The application is dismissed
DATED AT DURBAN ON THIS 12 DAY OF JULY 2024.
A S DORASAMY (ARBITRATOR)