Case Number: ELRC 1245-24 25 NW
Part Time Senior Panelist: M.A. HAWYES
Date of Award: 14TH of September 2025

In the ARBITRATION between

North West Department of Education

(Employer)

And

Mr. M. Monnatlala

(Employee)

Union/Applicant’s representative:
Union/Applicant’s address:

Telephone:
Telefax:
E-mail:

Respondent’s representative:
Respondent’s address:

Telephone:
Telefax:
E-mail:

DETAILS OF HEARING AND REPRESENTATION

1. The case was scheduled for an inquiry by arbitrator at the Northwest District Office in Mahikeng. The matter was scheduled for and postponed on four occasions from April 2025 to September 2025 allegedly due to the employee suffering from severe depression and being admitted to a local wellness centre.
2. The last postponement was to the 4th and 5th of September 2025. On the 4th of September 2025, the employee and his union representative from SADTU were not in attendance.
3. I was advised by the employer representative that the employee had resigned and was serving out his notice period with the employer.
4. I took a decision to proceed with the inquiry by arbitrator since the employee was still an employee of the employer at the time of the commencement of the said proceedings.
5. Since the employee was not present and unable to plead I noted a plea of not guilty on his behalf and in his absence.
6. The inquiry by arbitrator commenced on the 4th of September 2025 and was finalized on the 5th of September 2025.
7. After completion of the inquiry by arbitrator the employer representative was given 7 days (until the 12th of September 2025) within which to submit written closing arguments.
8. The written closing arguments were timeously received and my award now follows.
9. Mr. T.A Bahurutshe, a labour relations official, represented the employer.
10. The proceedings were digitally recorded, and long hand notes were also kept of the proceedings.
11. The employer made use of one bundle of documents consisting of 13 pages.
12. An interpreter, Mr. Sebastion Khuzwayo, assisted the witnesses with interpretation services.
13. Ms. Mafondo Mohaule-Mboweni, an intermediary, assisted the minor children throughout the duration of the inquiry by arbitrator.

ISSUES IN DISPUTE

14. The employee was charged with a contravention of section 17 (1) (b) of the Employment of Educators Act, 76 of 1998 (as amended) (EEA). It was alleged that the employee committed an act of sexual assault on a learner, student or employee in that on Sunday the 28th of July 2024 while on duty at Motsaalore Secondary School, he committed misconduct by kissing a learner, PM, on her cheek and touched her breast, buttocks and private parts.
15. It is common cause that the employer employs the employee as a PL 1 educator, teaching mathematics at Motsaalore Secondary School.

SURVEY OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT

16. The employer led the evidence of two minor witnesses namely PM and a classmate of PM, KS.
17. The employer also led the evidence of PM’s guardian and grandmother, Ms. Elizabeth Molele and the principal of Motsaalore Secondary School, Ms. K. Mabitle.
18. Both minor witnesses consented to testify at the hearing in person in the absence of the employee and any representative.
19. I established that PM was 18 years old at the time of the hearing and KS was 17 years old. It was clear that both witnesses were able to distinguish between right and wrong and both witnesses were directed to speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, which they undertook to do.
20. PM testified that she attended the employee’s mathematics extra lesson classes at the school premises on Sunday, the 28th of July 2024.
21. PM testified further that the first extra lessons session took place at 9h00 until 11h00. At 11h00 the employee told them that he was giving them a break for an hour and that thereafter they should return to pack scripts in the classroom.
22. Upon her return to class they had to wait for the employee to finish his extra lessons with grade 12 learners.
23. The employee met her and KS at the library. He indicated that he wanted to speak to PM and because PM had a physical impediment to her legs, the employee helped her to stand up.
24. PM testified that she was listening to music using KS’s headphones and when the employee called her she gave the headphones back to KS. The employee made it clear that he only wanted to speak to PM and KS remained behind.
25. PM then accompanied the employee to his office where she found a single desk and sat down.
26. The employee then proceeded to pull PM into his arms and asked her why was she so beautiful and why were so many boys after her. In so doing he kissed her on the cheek.
27. The employee then proceeded to pull PM between his thighs and she replied “I don’t know” to his questions.
28. PM testified that the employee slapped her on the buttocks and touched her on her private parts.
29. PM testified further that the employee saw that she was frightened and he assured her that he would not sleep with her because her private part is small. He then asked her to touch his private part.
30. PM testified that she pulled back and the employee stated that he wanted them to trust each other. He then took out his wallet and asked her how much money she wanted. PM replied and politely declined the invitation to accept money and at that point the employee touched her on her breast.
31. The employee told PM that she must not speak to anyone about what had happened in the office.
32. PM deposed that she was scared and just wanted to leave the office. A short while later the employee exited the office and she followed behind him slowly.
33. They returned to class and the employee announced that they had not been able to locate the scripts and class was dismissed for the day.
34. PM testified that she left the school with Tshepo, her cousin, and she told him about what had happened in the employee’s office.
35. Tshepo was shocked and told her to stay quiet to see how the employee would react.
36. PM stated that when she got home she went straight to bed.
37. Later that evening her grandmother returned from church and woke PM and asked her why she had gone to bed so early. It was at this juncture that PM confessed about what had happened at school earlier on in the day.
38. PM specifically mentioned that when she related the events to her grandmother she could not look her in the eyes.
39. PM testified that her grandmother reported the incident to the school on Tuesday, the 30th of July 2024.
40. The next witness was KS, who testified that he was sitting at the library with PM when the employee called PM to his office. The employee had made it clear that he only wanted PM to accompany him to his office so that they could search for the classes math’s scripts.
41. PM had his headset on and he ran after them to recover his headphones which he had loaned to PM to listen to music.
42. KS testified that was all he could remember.
43. The next witness was PM’s grandmother Mrs. Elizabeth Molele. PM referred to her grandmother as her mother and it was quickly established that Molele had raised PM in the absence of PM’s mother who lived elsewhere.
44. Molele testified that she arrived back from church on Sunday the 28th of July 2024 and found PM asleep. She went to PM to find out why she had gone to bed so early and discovered that she was wrapped in blankets and crying. PM then disclosed what had happened at school earlier that day.
45. Molele testified that she went to school the following day and discovered that the principal was not at school. She returned the following day with PM and the principal was at school and PM related what had happened. The employee was not present at the time.
46. On Wednesday the principal called the employee in and asked PM to repeat what had happened.
47. Molefe testified that the employee apologized and admitted taking PM into his office and offering her money at some stage. Molefe testified further that he offered PM money to help with her physical disability.
48. Molefe testified further that she challenged the employee’s motives and wanted to know why he had not offered financial assistance earlier if he was so inclined and why he had not offered it in the presence of the school management team (SMT).
49. Molefe also pointed out that PM had been at the school for three years. Why had he not offered financial assistance earlier. The employee had no reply to this.
50. In closing Molefe testified that the school and the employee wanted to speak to PM’s mother. PM’s mother was attending a funeral in the area later that week and she came to school but the employee was not at school. It turned out that the Wednesday was the employee’s last day at school.
51. Molefe testified that she advised the principal and the employee that she would be reporting the incident to the police, which she did a short while later.
52. In conclusion, Molefe testified that the employee was arrested, applied for bail, which was initially refused and he was detained in custody.
53. Molefe stated that the criminal case was still ongoing and at the last appearance the matter had not proceeded because the employee had been admitted at the Kgatelopele Wellness Centre.
54. The final witness was the principal of Motsaalore Secondary School whose testimony confirmed that of PM and Molefe in most material respects. ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT
55. The onus rests on the employer to prove all allegations of misconduct against the employee on a balance of probabilities.
56. The evidence of PM is crucial in that she was the only one able to give a direct account of what the employee did to her.
57. I find that she was a good, honest and reliable witness.
58. Her grandmother Molefe and the principal of Motsaalore Secondary School supported PM’s testimony in respect of the general circumstances relating to the reporting of the incident at school and the events that unfolded thereafter.
59. PM reported the matter to her grandmother a short while after the incident and Molefe’s testimony showed the depth of how PM had been affected by the employee’s egregious misconduct.
60. I find that the employer has proven all the allegations contained in the charge sheet against the employee, on a balance of probabilities.

FINDING ON THE MERITS

61. I find the employee guilty of a breach of section 17 (1) (b) of the EEA.
62. Convictions for misconduct cited under section 17 of the EEA only attract one sanction and that is dismissal. Therefore, there is no need for submissions in aggravation and mitigation before I render my sanction.
63. The employee is dismissed with immediate effect.
64. The employee is found to be unsuitable to work with children in terms of section 120 (4) of the Children’s Act no 38 of 2005.

MARK HAWYES
PART TIME SENIOR PANELIST
14th of September 2025