17 March 2026 -ELRC1070-25/26LP

Panellist/s: Seretse Masete
Case No.: ELRC 1070-25/26LP
Date of Award: 16 March 2026

In the ARBITRATION between:

Sape Makebe Mack

(Union / Applicant) And

Education Department of Limpopo

(Respondent)

Union/Applicant’s representative: Hezekiel Madire

Respondent’s representative: Portia Modipa

Particulars of the proceedings and representation

The matter was held on 12 March 2026 at the employer’s premises in Tzaneen, Limpopo Province.
The Applicant, Sape Makebe Mack, hereafter referred to as employee, was represented by, Hezekiel Madire, a union representative from SADTU, while the respondent, Education Department of Limpopo, hereafter referred to as employer, was represented by Portia Modipa.
The proceedings were in English and digitally voice recorded.

Issues to be determined

Whether or not the sanction of two months suspension without salary imposed on the employee was harsh and whether or not it amounted to an unfair labour practice.

Background and Nature of the dispute

The employee was employed as an educator on 24 January 1991 and he was the Principal of Mohlodimela Primary School under Thabina circuit. His salary was R49,172-00 per month at the time of the dispute.
The employer imposed a sanction of suspension for two months without salary to him for breaching of procurement policies.
He challenged the harshness of the sanction and sought that it be reduced.
The employer maintained that the sanction was commensurate with the offence committed by the employee.
The employer called 1 witness and submitted one bundle of documents marked R as well as an extract of the Employment of Educators Act 76 of 1998 as amended (EE Act), while the employee testified as a sole witness and submitted one bundle of document marked E.
Common Cause issues. The employee was the Principal at Mohlodimela Primary School. He contravened the procurement policies, by not seeking three quotations and by buying school items through credit. He was suspended for two months without salary.
Disputed issues. The sanction of two months suspension without salary was too harsh.

Evidence by the employee party
The employee, Sape Makebe Mack, testified under oath as follows:

He was the Principal at Mohlodimela Primary School within Thabina circuit. He breached the procurement policies by buying school items on credit and by not seeking three quotations as required by such policies. He, however, did not benefit anything from those transactions and the employer did not suffer any financial loss. He acted in that manner because things came to a stop because there was no money at the school. The norms and standard funds were depleted and he could not allow everything to come to a stop, hence he used his money and further bought the items on credit. The sanction of two months suspension without salary was too harsh considering the fact that he showed remorse during the disciplinary hearing by pleading guilty. The employer could have given him a final written warning because discipline is a progressive process and not punitive.

Evidence by the employer party
Witness of the employer, Ramodumo Mamatlepa Edgar, testified under oath as follows:

He was the initiator in the matter. The employer was guided by the schedule on page 4 of bundle R to arrive at the sanction. The employee was a Principal and could have known better. Schools were not allowed to buy items on credit and the worst part was that the employee had a tendency of using his money to buy the school items and later refunded himself from the school fees. Such conduct was not allowed in the schools within the Education Department of Limpopo. The procurement policies were designed to avoid corruption during the processes of procurement. The money allocated to the school was pubic funds and needed to be utilised in terms of the relevant policies. The worst part was that the employee committed such offenses repeatedly on different occasions. Pleading guilty by the employee was not a sign of showing remorse, but because he realised that the evidence against him was overwhelming. He further failed to produce the documents with regard to the buying of the said items requested by the employer. That was one of the reasons the employer could not choose the sanction of final written warning but two months suspension without salary. The employer was actually lenient because some of the sanctions relevant to such misconduct the employer could have chosen from, included three months suspension without salary and dismissal as well.

Analysis of the evidence and arguments
• It is common cause that the employee contravened the procurement policies of the employer. The employee pleaded guilty to the charges and therefore the issue of guilt is not in dispute. The only issue for determination is the fairness of the sanction. In determining the fairness of a sanction, commissioners are guided by the principles set out in the land mark case of Sidumo and Another v Rustenburg Platinum Mines Ltd and Others, [2007] 12 BLLR 1097 (CC), where the Constitutional Court held that the commissioner must determine whether the sanction imposed by the employer is fair in all the circumstances, taking into account factors such as:
• the importance of the rule breached,
• the reason the employer imposed the sanction,
• the harm caused by the employee’s conduct,
• the employee’s service record and disciplinary history, and
• the possibility of progressive discipline.

In the present matter, procurement policies within government institutions serve an important purpose, namely to ensure transparency, accountability and the prevention of irregular expenditure which corroborate that the rule was important. Breaching such policies is therefore inherently serious because it would open the gates for corruption, and that was why the employer imposed the sanction of two months suspension without salary. The sanction should serve as a deterrence even to those who anticipate to commit similar misconducts in the future because such misconduct have a potential harm to the employer’s business. However, certain mitigating factors are present. first, the employee pleaded guilty, which indicates an acceptance of wrongdoing and saved the employer the time and resources required to prove the case. Secondly, there is no evidence that the employee personally benefited from the procurement transaction. Thirdly, it was not disputed that the employee has no previous disciplinary record. The sanction of two months suspension without salary was therefore a progressive discipline because it is a sanction short of dismissal. The employer could have imposed a sanction of dismissal because this kind of a misconduct carry a dismissible sanction depending on the merits of each case, see page 4 of the EE Act extract.
In considering sanctions, the Labour Appeal Court in Toyota SA Motors (Pty) Ltd v Radebe and Others (2000) 21ILJ 340 (LAC) emphasised that discipline should generally be corrective rather than punitive, particularly where the employment relationship has not been irreparably damaged. Furthermore, in UNTU obo Mahabe v Woolfrey NO (2025) ZALCCT 16 the Court emphasised that acknowledgment of wrongdoing is the first step towards rehabilitation.
In the current matter, the employer did not demonstrate that the employee’s conduct resulted in personal gain, fraud or corruption. The misconduct relates to non-compliance with procedures, which remained serious but must be weighed against the mitigating circumstances. Importantly, the sanction imposed by the employer does not involve dismissal, but a temporary suspension without salary, which falls within the range of sanctions in the disciplinary code and serves a corrective purpose.
Taking all factors into account, I am not persuaded that the sanction imposed is shockingly inappropriate or disproportionate to the misconduct committed. All the principles mentioned in Sidumo matter were on the balance of probabilities taken into consideration by the employer, hence a sanction short of dismissal.My finding on the balance of probabilities is that the sanction imposed by the employer to the employee is an appropriate and fair sanction under the circumstances.

Award