Panellist: Themba Manganyi
Case No.: ELRC1389-24/25GP
Dates of Hearing: 12 May 2025, 25 – 27 June 2025,
14 July 2025, 11, 12, 18 and 19 August 2025,
01 and 02 October 2025 and 24 – 26 November 2025
Date of Arguments: 05 and 15 December 2025
Date of Award: 12 January 2026

In the Inquiry by Arbitrator Hearing between

HEAD OF DEPARTMENT: GAUTENG DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION EMPLOYER

and

MR CHRIS DENYSSCHEN EMPLOYEE

Details of hearing and representation

1. The arbitration proceedings in this matter were conducted in terms of section 188A of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (“the LRA”), as amended, under the auspices of the Education Labour Relations Council (“the Council”).
2. Mr John Marakalla (“Mr Marakalla”), the Labour Relations Manager, represented the Employer, the Head of Department: Gauteng Department of Education. Adv. Gerhard Cilliers (“Adv. Cilliers”), a Senior Counsel briefed by JW Botes Incorporated, represented the Employee, Mr Chris Denysschen (“Mr Denysschen”). Ms Henriёtte Robbertse (“Ms Robbertse”), an Attorney from JW Botes, attended all the proceedings.
3. The proceedings were conducted on 12 May 2025 via virtual platform and on 25 – 27 June 2025, 14 July 2025, 11, 12, 18 and 19 August 2025, 01 and 02 October 2025 and 24 – 26 November 2025 at the Council’s Offices in Centurion. Parties submitted bundles of documents into the record. The Employer’s bundle was marked as Bundle ER and the Employee’s bundle was marked as Bundle EE. Parties called witnesses to give oral evidence and one (1) of the Employer’s witnesses testified with the aid of an Intermediary. Ms Mule Padi assisted with the services of an intermediary and Mr Musa Myeza assisted with interpreting. The proceedings were recorded and the recordings thereof were retained by the Council.
4. At the end of the proceedings, parties requested to submit their heads of arguments in writing on or before 05 December 2025. The Employer’s heads of arguments were duly received. However, the Employee requested for an extension due to the demise of the Director of JW Botes Inc. The Employee’s heads of arguments were received on 15 December 2025 after the appointment of Helena Strijdom Attorneys as the attorneys of record.
5. Please note that the names of the learners will not be disclosed in this award to protect their identity.

Issue/s to be decided

6. I am required to determine the veracity of the allegations that are preferred against Mr Denysschen. In the event that I find that the allegations have merit, I will have to determine the appropriate sanction.

Rights and the procedure

7. The rights of the Employee were read out and he confirmed that he was afforded all his rights to ensure the fairness of the process. I also explained the process that will be followed in these proceedings.

Allegations

8. The Employer preferred the following allegations against Mr Denysschen:

Allegation 1
It is alleged that on or around 16 August 2024, while on duty at Hoërskool Waterkloof, you conducted yourself in an improper, disgraceful and unacceptable manner in that, you hugged, pushed your chest against the breasts of Learner A, a Grade 11 girl learner while pulling hard around her without her permission.

In view of your actions, you are thus charged with misconduct in terms of section 18(1)(q) of the Employment of Educators Act 76 of 1998, as amended.

Allegation 2
It is alleged that during the year 2022, while on duty at Hoërskool Waterkloof, you conducted yourself in an improper, disgraceful and unacceptable manner in that, you told girl learners that they are seductive and if they wear clothes with open shoulders, they should cover up.

In view of your actions, you are thus charged with misconduct in terms of section 18(1)(q) of the Employment of Educators Act 76 of 1998, as amended.

Allegation 3
It is alleged that on or around 18 May 2023, while on duty at Hoërskool Waterkloof, you conducted yourself in an improper, disgraceful and unacceptable manner in that, you asked Ms Ciska Heydenrych that if two people of the opposite sex and one farts, what happens to the climax.

In view of your actions, you are thus charged with misconduct in terms of section 18(1)(q) of the Employment of Educators Act 76 of 1998, as amended.

Allegation 4
It is alleged that during the month of October 2023, while on duty at Hoërskool Waterkloof, you conducted yourself in an improper, disgraceful and unacceptable manner in that, you asked Mr Morné Viljoen what he does in bed with his partner when they are sexually active.

In view of your actions, you are thus charged with misconduct in terms of section 18(1)(q) of the Employment of Educators Act 76 of 1998, as amended.

Allegation 5
It is alleged that during the month of March 2022, while on duty at Hoërskool Waterkloof, you conducted yourself in an improper, disgraceful and unacceptable manner in that, you body shamed Ms Chadri Cronjè by telling her that she is overweight and she cannot inspire girl learners.

In view of your actions, you are thus charged with misconduct in terms of section 18(1)(q) of the Employment of Educators Act 76 of 1998, as amended.

Allegation 6
It is alleged that during the month of August 2023, while on duty at Hoërskool Waterkloof, you conducted yourself in an improper, disgraceful and unacceptable manner in that, you hugged, pushed your chest against the breasts of Learner B, a Grade 12 girl learner while pulling hard your arms around her back.

In view of your actions, you are thus charged in terms of section 18(1)(q) of the Employment of Educators Act 76 of 1998 as amended.

Pleadings

9. Mr Denysschen pleaded not guilty to all the allegations leveled against him.

Survey of evidence and arguments

10. What follows hereunder is not a verbatim account of the witnesses’ testimony, but just a summary of the salient points of the testimony. The proceedings were conducted over a period of fourteen (14) days. Thus, it is to be expected that the evidence that was led was extensive. Section 138(7) of the LRA prescribes that a commissioner must issue an award with brief reasons. Hence, I will not regurgitate the entire proceedings. Further to that, the proceedings are a matter of record.

The Employer’s case

11. Learner A testified under oath with an aid of an Intermediary and stated that she was a learner at Hoërskool Waterkloof in 2024 and she has since left the school because she felt that the school culture was very disrespectful towards women. She testified that on 16 August 2024, the Klofieraad went to Mr Denysschen’s office to congratulate him for his birthday. She stated that they found Mr Denysschen already in his office and they stood outside his office door. They entered one by one to congratulate him. She extended her hand for a hand shake, but he pulled her forcefully to give her a hug. She stated that the hug was unwanted and uncomfortable. She testified that his hands were around her waist and his chest was against her breasts. She stated that she did not invite him to hug her and that the hug was very inappropriate. She felt violated. She testified that she reported the incident to her mother the same afternoon when her mother came to pick her up from school. With regard to allegation 2, she stated that Mr Denysschen sometime in the year 2022, made an announcement on the public address system (“the PA system”) that girl learners may not wear clothes with open shoulders on civvies day because they will turn the boys on and the girls were supposed to keep the boys’ hormones in check. She stated that Mr Denysschen said that open shoulders clothes made them look seductive.
12. Under cross-examination, she stated that Mr Denysschen announced on the PA system that girls should not wear clothing that exposed their shoulders as that would arouse boys’ hormones and that girls are seductive. She stated that she did not lodge a complaint about this incident at the time. She conceded that she laid a complaint with the Department on 26 August 2024. She conceded that she laid a criminal case on 05 September 2024 against Mr Denysschen. She stated that the police officer wrote her statement and she read it before signing it. She avowed that her testimony in these proceedings was not the sum total of what she told the police officer, but her statement was about the incident of 16 August 2024. She stated that she could not recall her exact words on her SAPS statement. However, the phrasing of allegation 1 is as close to her statement. She stated that she did not testify in her evidence in chief that Mr Denysschen mentioned knees in his announcement because that did not stand out for her. What made her very uncomfortable were the open shoulders. She conceded that she made the statement two (2) years after the alleged incident. She agreed that she cannot gainsay Mr Denysschen’s testimony that there was no complaint that was lodged by anyone regarding this alleged incident. However, submitted that MR Denysschen kneeled in front of the learners the following day after the incident asking the learners for their forgiveness. This version was disputed.
13. She submitted that the pictures that are on page 1(a) of EE supplementary bundle were depicting an A-frame hug. She explained that a full body hug was when the bodies were facing each other and the frontal part would be in full contact. She later changed that the pictures were depicting full body hugs. She stated that the hugs on the pictures were not the same as the hug that Mr Denysschen gave her. He gave her a full body hug with his arms around her waist and that made her uncomfortable. She conceded that in her statement on page 57 of EE there is nowhere where she indicated that Mr Denysschen put his hands around his waist. She submitted that she observed Mr Denysschen hugging other girl learners at the rugby field on 16 August 2024 and that the hugs were uncomfortable and disrespectful. She could not remember if she attended a school function at Soltech Monument Park later on 16 August 2024. She could not comment on the version that Mr Nols Nolte would testify about regarding her SAPS statement. She reiterated that the Klofieraad found Mr Denysschen already in his office. She could not recall if there were other learners in the office when she entered. She refuted the version that Mr Denysschen found the learners already waiting for him in his office. A version was put to her that Mr Denysschen and Learner C will testify that Mr Denysschen was standing by the office door and he hugged some and shook other learners’ hands and stated that her version was the correct version.
14. Learner B testified under oath and stated that she was a student at the University of Pretoria and that she was learner at Hoërskool Waterkloof until she matriculated in the year 2024. She testified that during August 2022 Mr Denysschen announced on the PA system that girl learners must wear clothing that will cover their shoulders because open shoulders makes them seductive and would arouse the boy learners and male educators. He further said it was the girls’ responsibility to keep the boys’ hormones at bay. She stated that she understood seductive to mean sexually appealing or desirable. She testified that it was highly inappropriate for the Principal to make such a comment. The comment made her feel uncomfortable, unsafe and traumatized. She stated that the dress code guidelines on page 18 of EE were shared with the learners during the final week of August 2022.
15. With regard to allegation 6, she testified that she was walking with two (2) boy learners on the rugby field in August 2023 during a school event. They stopped to greet Mr Denysschen. Mr Denysschen shook the boys’ hands and when she offered her hand, Mr Denysschen ignored it and instead he pulled her into a tight hug. She stated that Mr Denysschen wrapped his arms around her back and pushed his chest against her breasts. Mr Denysschen did not let go of her for a considerable amount of time. She stated that she did not give him permission to hug her. She felt uncomfortable and his action caused her emotional distress.
16. Under cross-examination, she stated that she only complaint about Mr Denysschen’s conduct around September or October 2024 to Mr Marakalla and to SACE. She avowed that she informed her mother about Mr Denysschen’s announcement on the day of the incident and that she reported at the Department two (2) after the incident. She stated that she wrote a statement and she gave it to Mr Marakalla and she gave her stated to SACE at the commencement of the year 2025. She testified that the announcement was a point of discussion by the learners, both boys and girls. She stated that she was not aware if there were no other complaints that were made following the announcement except for Learner A. However, she was aware of other complaints where Mr Denysschen sniffed learners’ hair and calling boys to his office to ask them about the pornography they watched in their spare time.
17. She stated that the incident on allegation 6 occurred during the school event called the ‘smulfees´ at the rugby field. She stated that the boy learners that she was with were her boyfriend (who wanted to remain anonymous) and one André. She testified that Mr Denysschen’s hands were over her arms and that he touched her lower back and that his arms were at about her elbow height. She disputed that the chests would ordinarily touch when a male hugs a female. She stated that it was inappropriate for Mr Denysschen to pull her tight as she had to close relations with him and that she did no consent to the hug. She did not make any form of complaint at the school or at the Department at the time. However, she stated that she told her parents about the incident on the day as her parents were also at the event. She told her parents to wait before they lodged a complaint because she was afraid that there would be retaliation similar to her experience when she was still in Grade 8 when she reported her English teacher and no steps were taken. Instead, she was yelled at. She stated that the hug depicted on page 15 of EE supplementary bundle was not the same as her hug. She submitted that with her, Mr Denysschen’s arms were lower around her back and he was closer to her. She stated that the hug happened in the evening shortly after sunset. It was dark. She would not deny that the smulfees was on 08 September 2023. She refuted the version that Mr Denysschen went to speak with the performers at around 17h45. She did not know how the name Daddy D originated from and she could not deny that the name was given to Mr Denysschen by the learners some six (6) years back. However, she stated that Mr Denysschen introduced himself as Daddy D when she started Grade 8. She refuted Mr Denysschen’s version that the hugging incident did not happen.
18. Ms Ciska Heydenrych (“Ms Heydenrych”) testified under oath and stated that she was the Food and Beverages Manager at Hoërskool Waterkloof. She stated that she had a professional relationship with Mr Denysschen as the Head Master of Hoërskool Waterkloof. She stated that she received a call on her cellphone from Mr Denysschen. When she answered the call, Mr Denysschen informed her that he was with two (2) male teachers (Messrs Stefan Coetzer and Wickus Smit) and the call was on speaker phone. Mr Denysschen told her that he wanted to ask her a question. She responded by telling him that she was not a teacher and why did he not ask the teachers. She stated that Mr Denysschen proceeded to ask her ‘if two people of the opposite sex were having sex, what would happen during climax if one of them farts’? She told him that he cannot ask her such a question as she was not married. The question was very upsetting and she was devastated. She stated that Ms Angie Crouse (“Ms Crouse”) came to her office and asked her why was she upset. At first she was embarrassed to tell her what happened. When she told Crouse what has happened, Ms Crouse said she must report the matter. She testified that she phoned Mr Marius Botha (“Mr Botha”) and Ms Carina Taute (“Ms Taute”). She was referred to page 7 of ER (a statement by Ms Taute) and she disputed that she said that she did not want Ms Taute to escalate the complaint. She wanted Ms Taute to deal with the matter privately. However. Ms Taute did not deal with it. She referred to Mr Botha’s statement on page 95 of EE and stated that Mr Botha was not truthful in his statement. She stated that she told Mr Botha who the person was that she was complaining about and that it was not true that Mr Botha advised her to follow the grievance procedure. Instead, Mr Botha promised her that he will get back to her.
19. She testified that it was not true that she did not report the matter at HR and stated that she also reported the matter to Mr Denysschen’s secretary. She stated that she did not receive any help after complaining. She testified that the incident was traumatic to her and she suffered a mild stroke because of the incident. She averred that Mr Denysschen posted a video on a social media platform when he came back to school on 13 December 2024 threatening his accusers if they were ready for him. She stated that Mr Denysschen came to the kitchen and told her that she must come to his office and have tea with him and that on another occasion Mr Denysschen came with Ms Taute to the kitchen saying that he wanted to talk to her. He asked her what he could do to make her work easier. He offered to buy her clothes. He again came to have bacon in the kitchen and he enjoyed it. He called his wife to come taste the bacon. His wife came and she said they must fix this and he hugged her.
20. Under cross-examination, she stated that she was still in contact with Mr Danie Potgieter, the former Principal, and that she called once or twice to ask him about something. She conceded that she acquired the services of an attorney (Mr Hefferman) to assist her with this complaint. She confirmed that she called Mr Botha on 19 May 2023 and that she could not remember if she sent Mr Botha a WhatsApp message. She conceded that her version in her evidence in chief was not correct that she contacted Mr Potgieter once or twice. She did not know if Mr Potgieter and Learner A’s father were friends, but she could not deny that they were friends. She did not respond to the version that when Mr Marakalla issued the audi letter told Mr Denysschen that all these allegations are a witch-hunt.
21. She confirmed that she told Mr Coetzer that she was unmarried when his stomach protruded when he was scratching himself. She disputed that she said that she did not like Mr Coetzer. She confirmed that she went to Mr Stoop, but denied that she said what is alleged she said about Mr Coetzer in par. 5 of page 92 of EE. She confirmed that she instructed Mr Hefferman to direct a letter to Mr Coetzer (page 110 of EE). She denied that she instructed Mr Hefferman to hold a press conference.
22. She disputed the version that Mr Smith was not in Mr Denysschen’s office when he called her. She asserted that Mr Denysschen called her on her cellphone. She was adamant that she met Mr Smith on the Monday following the phone call and he tried to give her a hug. She stated that she thinks that she called Mr Botha on the same day to tell him about the incident and she requested him to take the matter further on her behalf. Her response to page 21 of EE supplementary bundle (WhatsApp message) was that she wanted the matter to be handled between Mr Botha, Mr Denysschen and herself as she did not want anybody else to know about it. She stated that Ms Taute would be lying if she were to testify that she left her (Ms Taute) office calm and she said that she did not want to take the matter further. She reconfirmed that she did not instruct Hefferman to hold a press conference on 02 July 2025.
23. She stated that when Mr Denysschen visited her in the kitchen in the company of Mr Taute, he said that they must not walk on eggs and that they must respect each other. He further asked what she would like him to do for her to make her work comfortable. He wanted to get her a blazer. She stated that Mr Denysschen never visited the kitchen before her complaint. She confirmed that Mr Denysschen said that he did not want them to discuss about the case and he wanted them to shake hands. She submitted that when Mr Denysschen left the kitchen, Ms Taute remained behind and said she was sorry that she did not handle the matter correctly.
24. Mr Morné Viljoen (“Mr Viljoen”) testified under oath and stated that he was an Educator at Hoërskool Waterkloof. He stated that Mr Denysschen invited him to his office for coffee and when he got to his office, Mr Denysschen closed the office door and told him that he must make himself comfortable. It was only the two of them in the office He testified that Mr Denysschen asked him “what was my story”? At first, he thought that Mr Denysschen was asking him about his working experience at the school. After sharing his experience with Mr Denysschen, Mr Denysschen thanked him and said that was not actually what he wanted to know. Mr Denysschen then asked him: can you be a naughty guy? He stated that he sought clarity for the question. He stated that Mr Denysschen then said: “let me put it this way. What do you do with your partner when you are sexually active in bed”? He stated that he was really shocked and disturbed by the question and he immediately felt uncomfortable. He then told Mr Denysschen that he will not discuss the matter with him because it does not have anything to do with him. Then Mr Denysschen said he understood if he did not want to discuss the matter with him and further said he knows that there is a purpose that he came into his life. He testified that Mr Denysschen thanked him again for having made the coffee appointment and said he should make another coffee appointment. As he was about to leave the office, he offered Mr Denysschen a hand shake, but Mr Denysschen pulled him closer and gave him a full body hug for about four to five seconds. He stated that he was deeply shocked by his action and he did not know how to respond. Then Mr Denysschen opened the office door and said he must have a good day further.
25. He testified that he did not know why Mr Denysschen was interested in homosexuality. He stated that Mr Denysschen acted in a disgraceful, improper and unacceptable manner. He felt uncomfortable, confused and disturbed because what Mr Denysschen asked him was a private matter. He submitted that Mr Denysschen’s conduct was not supported by the Code of Professional Ethics.
26. Under cross-examination, he stated that the incident took place in October 2023. He stated that he reported the incident to his grade head before 14 October 2024. However, he did not lodge a formal complaint. He confirmed that he had contact with Mr Denysschen after the incident when he took a learner who was difficult in class to the Deputy Principal and when Mr Denysschen saw him, he invited him to his office so that he can deal with the learner. He again had contact with Mr Denysschen when his former partner informed Mr Denysschen that he (Mr Viljoen) was emotionally not well. So he met with Mr Denysschen in his office on 23 July 2024 to ask him if that would have any influence in the HOD position that he had applied for. He was appointed for the HOD position. The incumbent was appointed on 01 October 2024. He confirmed that he asked Mr Denysschen to say a prayer at his wedding because he had respect for him. He confirmed that Mr Denysschen played him a voice note from his (Mr Viljoen) former partner. He submitted that he did not tell Mr Denysschen that he intended to lodge a complaint against him.
27. He confirmed that he opened a case at SAPS against Mr Denysschen and he disputed the version that Mr Nolte would say that the incident with Mr Denysschen as per his SAPS statement occurred on 26 September 2023 and insisted that the incident occurred in October 2023. He stated that he made the complaint at SAPS in September 2024 because he decided to stand up for himself and to protect other educators who were afraid to speak up. He decided to act when the Departmental Officials visited the school in October 2024.
28. He confirmed that Mr Hefferman was his attorney, but disputed that he gave Mr Hefferman an instruction for a media release. He denied that he spoke to the media about his complaint at the end of 2024. He stated that he heard about Mr Hefferman from Ms Heydenrych, but he could not recall when. He confirmed that he was friends with Ms Heydenrych and Ms Chadri Cronje (Ms Cronje) and he confirmed that they spoke about their complaints. He confirmed that Learner A’s mother contacted him telephonically asking him if he wanted to have coffee with her. She did not state the reason for the coffee appointment. He did not meet with her and she did not contact him again. He was adamant that the incident involving Mr Denysschen did happen.
29. Ms Cronje testified under oath and stated she was an Educator at Hoërskool Waterkloof. She stated that she attended an interview at school in March 2022 and basic questions were asked during the interview. However, Mr Denysschen asked her one question that left her humiliated and traumatized. Mr Denysschen asked her: “how would I inspire girls who have eating disorders looking like that (made hand gestures to indicate a round shape)? She stated that she understood the hand gestures to mean a round figure. She said Mr Denysschen body shamed her and she felt humiliated. She stated that she reported the matter to Ms Taute and Ms Taute said she will deal with it. She testified that from 2022 to 2024 she needed to deal with her trauma and her father had cancer. So she had to deal with all of that. She lost 54 kilograms in the process. She withdrew herself from social gatherings because she felt unacceptable. She stated that Mr Denysschen’s verbal and non-verbal conduct was disrespectful, improper and disgraceful. She attended a life coach for two (2) years to deal with her trauma due to the incident.
30. Under cross-examination, she stated that the interview panel members were Ms Taute, Mr Duan Viljoen (boys Grade 10 head), Ms Andre Campbell and Mr Denysschen. She disputed the version that Mr Leon Coetzer was part of that panel and stated he was on the panel of the second interview. She submitted that Mr Duan Viljoen was part of the panel and he asked her a question during the interview because she was going to work with him. She stated that Ms Taute was busy writing when Ms Denysschen shamed her and she looked at Ms Taute. After the interview, Ms Taute spoke to her in her office and asked her if she was okay after the interview. Mr Duan Viljoen looked around in the room and did not say anything to her and Ms Andre Campbell sat back in her chair and asked Mr Denysschen how can he ask a question like that and Mr Denysschen responded by raising his hands on the air and said that he may ask a question like that. She stated that she was not appointed in the position and Ms Andre Campbell continued with the position. Thereafter, Ms Angie Crouse (“Ms Angie Crouse”) was appointed. She disputed that Ms Hesther van der Westhuizen was appointed.
31. She stated that she did not include the altercation between Ms Andre Campbell and Mr Denysschen in her statement because she only wrote about how she felt. She stated that she lodged a complaint with Ms Taute immediately and she recorded the complaint in her black book. She followed up with Ms Taute when she applied for another position and Ms Taute promised her that she spoke to Mr Denysschen about the incident. She confirmed that she and Mr Viljoen were professional friends (work colleagues) and she stated that she was not friends with Ms Heydenrych. She stated that Ms Taute called her on 24 January 2025 to her office and when she got there, she found Mr Denysschen in her office. Mr Denysschen said just wanted to make it clear that they are in a professional work space and that they needed to have mutual respect for each other. He further said that he did not remember what happened two (2) years ago and that he was sorry about everything that he has done to her. She disputed that she told Mr Denysschen and Ms Taute that she did not want to lodge a complaint against him, but her story was used. She stated that Mr Hefferman was not her attorney and that he only read about him on the newspaper.
32. Ms Crouse testified under oath and stated that she was a Hospitality Educator and a Hostel Mother at Hoërskool Waterkloof. She stated that she went to greet Ms Heydenrych at the hostel after school. When she went into the kitchen, she could see that Ms Heydenrych was upset and crying. She could see that something was wrong with Ms Heydenrych. She asked her why was she upset and Mr Heydenrych told her that earlier in the day she received a call from Mr Denysschen. She said that Mr Denysschen asked her an inappropriate question. She told her that Mr Denysschen said that he was with two (2) young male teachers in his office and that he was on speaker phone. Mr Denysschen asked her if two (2) people were busy having sex and one of them farts, do they continue or do they stop. She stated that Ms Heydenrych told her that she was shocked and did not know what to answer. She then advised Ms Heydenrych to contact the Deputy Principal of HR, Ms Taute. After about a week, Ms Heydenrych told her that Ms Taute told her that Mr Denysschen was probably making a joke. It was not serious and she should not be upset.
33. Under cross-examination, she stated that she omitted to mention that Mr Denysschen said to Ms Heydenrych that they received a question from a learner in class and she (Ms Heydenrych) has to help / advise them how to answer such a question. She confirmed that Ms Heydenrych did not share with her the contents of page 5 par 4 of ER. She confirmed that the question that was conveyed to her by Ms Heydenrych was the one in her statement. When referred to page 5 par. 3 of ER, she stated that what appeared there was not the exact question that Ms Heydenrych conveyed to her. She stated that she did not convey her interaction with Ms Heydenrych with anyone at the school or with the SGB. She confirmed that she had a discussion with Ms Taute after about a week after the incident and Ms Taute informed her that she (Ms Taute) had a conversation with Ms Heydenrych. She also confirmed that she did not take this matter up in 2024 when she was elected as a SGB member.

The Employee’s case

34. Mr Denysschen testified under oath and stated that he has been an Educator for twenty five (25) years and that he was appointed as the Principal of Hoërskool Waterkloof on 01 December 2018 and before that he was a Principal for seven (7) years in Tzaneen. He stated that he has never been charged for misconduct before. He testified that he knew of the allegations against him 07 September 2024. Messrs Billy Kgomo and Marakalla came to his office to inform him about the complaints against him. He was handed a precautionary transfer to the District Office on 12 September 2024. He testified about the several newspapers articles from page 33 of EE dated 15 September 2024 to page 50 of EE. He stated that there were radio and TV interviews regarding the complaints against him. He testified that he did not participate in any interviews and that he adhered to his transfer conditions. He submitted that after the lapse of the ninety (90) days he was transferred back to the school on 13 December 2024.
35. He testified that he received an audi letter on page 74 of EE from Mr Marakalla dated 20 November 2024. He submitted that Mr Marakalla went through the allegations and Mr Marakalla remarked that these allegations were driven by Learner A’s parents. He referred to page 78 of EE dated 12 December 2024 and stated that the document was the notice of the disciplinary hearing handed to him on 30 January 2025 in his office by Mr Marakalla in the presence of Mr Elias Masingi.
36. He testified that on 16 August 2024 was his birthday and learners abducted him from the staff meeting. They put a pillow case over his head and escorted him to the school’s golf cart. The learners drove with him around the school premises until to the pavilion where the whole school had assembled to congratulate him on his birthday. The learners danced and sang for him whilst he was sitting at the rugby field. When he got to his office, there were seventy (70) learners of the Klofieraad that were in his office waiting for him. He sat behind his desk and the learners gave him a present and said their best wishes. He stood up and went to stand next to the door. Learners went out of the office one by one and they either gave him a hug or a handshake. He stated that Learner A was part of the Student Council and that she was also in his office. He cannot recall whether Learner A was there or not. He cannot recall his interaction with her. He stated that he would respond to how a learner approached him. If a learner gave him a hand for a handshake, he would shake hands with the learner and if a learner gave him a hug, he would hug the learner. He testified that he did not have time to hug a learner as described by Learner A. He stated that he never hugged learners on their waists and that he hugged both female and male learners. He confirmed that he attended a school function that same evening at Soltech Monument Park and the learners and their parents either hugged or shook his hand to congratulate him for his birthday.
37. He testified that every time when learners have to wear civilian clothes, he will recite the Code of Conduct on the intercom and that there are 2 400 learners and 300 educators. If he were to say anything that was inappropriate, the educators would remark. The reason for announcing the Code every time when it is civvies day because there are learners who do not adhere to the Code. He stated that he did not receive any complaint regarding allegation 2 before this formal complaint. Instead, parents sent thank you notes saying that the school was strict on civvies day.
38. With regard to allegation 3, he stated that there was a Life Orientation male educator who was asked a question in class by a girl learner on 18 May 2023. The question was: if two (2) people of the opposite sex are having sex and one (1) farts, does it stop? The teacher told the learner that the question was inappropriate and she wanted an answer, she can see him afterwards. The educator reported the incident to him later on that same day. He testified that the same educator had just moved into the hostel in that week and it was important for him to give each and every teacher who moves into the hostel the do’s and don’ts of the hostel so that he can ensure that an unmarried educator does not keep a visitor of the opposite sex overnight because learners make up stories and that gives his hostel a bad name and reputation.
39. He stated that he and the educator spoke about the upcoming rugby event of the old boys and I asked him if everything was in place. He stated that the educator was not sure of some of the things. He stated that he called on the internal line and on loud speaker. He asked Ms Heydenrych if everything was ready and Ms Heydenrych confirmed that everything was in place and that everything will be ready. He then informed her that Mr Coetzer was sitting in his office and she knows Mr Coetzer from the age of six (6), she needs to keep an eye on him due to the fact that a learner had the audacity to ask him that question in class. He reiterated that it was important to look after our young teachers to not make mistakes because we were shocked that a 15 or 16 year old girl asked that question openly in class. He stated that Ms Heydenrych was shocked and said that the learner must go and ask the Biology teacher. He stated that when he made that call, he was only with Mr Coetzer in his office. He stated that he was never told by anyone that Mr Heydenrych was aggrieved. He confirmed that the date of the alleged incident as per allegation 3 was correct.
40. He testified that he never had any discussion with Mr Viljoen about what he did with his partner when they were in bed. He stated that he had a professional relationship with Mr Viljoen around October 2023. He testified that he saw Mr Viljoen a few times in the seven (7) years that he has been at the school on work issues and also sometimes Mr Viljoen came to talk to him. Mr Viljoen requested him to do a table prayer at his wedding, but the wedding was cancelled. He testified that the last time he saw Mr Viljoen was when they advertised the HOD post of Life Orientation and Mr Viljoen came to see him and Mr Viljoen informed him that he was now free to coach athletics. He then told Mr Viljoen that his former partner has sent him voice notes about the mental state of Mr Viljoen. Mr Viljoen apologized for his former partner’s behaviour. They then parted ways and he wished Mr Viljoen luck on the LO post. He testified that he never made an appointment with Mr Viljoen for coffee in October 2023. He stated that he never met with Mr Viljoen as alleged and stated that he did not utter the words on par. 6 of page 10 of ER. He stated that it was not correct that he gave Mr Viljoen a hug. He confirmed that Mr Viljoen, Ms Heydenrych and Ms Cronje were friends.
41. He testified that he recalled the interview where Ms Cronje was a candidate and that the panel members were himself, Ms Taute, Ms Campbell and Mr Leon Coetzer. He stated that the interview questions were standardized, but depending on the answer, they might be a follow up question. He referred to the standardized questions on page 1 and 2 of EE and stated that the questions on page 2 of EE were the questions that were used. He denied that he did not tell Ms Cronje that she did not fit the picture for the position as she was overweight. He confirmed that the question: how will I inspire especially girls in that certain grade since that group is very focused on their bodies and have eating disorders? He stated that he asked this question to all the candidates. He denied that he made gestures when he asked questions. He denied that Ms Campbell intervened. He stated that he did hear of any complaints that were made regarding this allegation. The only time that he heard about this allegation, was when he received the notification.
42. He testified that the allegation as detailed by Learner B could not have taken place as she described it. He stated that he left VIP suites and went to the back stage, then went to sit with family until the show ended at around 22h00. He stated that he did not have any encounter with Learner B and he cannot recall hugging her at all. He stated that he did not remember seeing her on that day and that it was impossible that he could have hugged her in the manner that she has described because of their height differences. He stated that he did not know how the journalist, Mr Johan Eybers, got to know about the allegations levelled against him. He stated that there were three (3) cases that were opened against him at SAPS, but one was withdrawn.
43. Under cross-examination, he stated that he did not know that the complaints came from the parents until he was informed by Mr Marakalla. He stated that on the morning of 16 August 2024, it was his birthday and there were about sixty five (65) learners from the RCL who were in his office and he confirmed that all those learners fitted in his office. He stated that he cannot remember all the learners that were in his office, but most probably Learner A was there. He could not recall if he hugged Learner A. He disputed that he hugged Learner A forcefully and put his chest against her breast and further stated that he did not even remember the hug. He disputed the version that Learner A narrated at the police station that he forcefully hugged her. He recalled that the head girl gave him a handshake. He reiterated that when he got to his office, the learners were already in his office.
44. He disagreed that there was no need for him to make an announcement on the PA system regarding the civvies day and stated that it was his responsibility to tell learners what was appropriate to wear. He submitted that if he had used the words as alleged, there would have been an eruption at the school. He confirmed that he called Ms Heydenrych on the alleged day of the incident and reiterated that he was with Mr Coetzer only in his office. He stated that the main reason for calling Ms Heydenrych was to check if she has made the arrangements for refreshments for the rugby event. He stated that Ms Heydenrych reported to the hostel father and mother and to him on the food and beverages side. He asserted that the subject matters are directed to the Departmental Heads depending on the question. He disagreed that the question on allegation 3 was supposed to have been directed to the Departmental Head and not Ms Heydenrych and stated that the reason that he put the question to Ms Heydenrych was that he wanted her to look out for Mr Coetzer as a young teacher. He did not expect an answer from Ms Heydenrych. He disputed that Ms Taute raised the issue regarding his communication with Ms Heydenrych. He disputed that he asked Mr Viljoen the question of what does he do when he was in bed with his partner and further stated that he did not have any appointment with Mr Viljoen around that period. He disputed that he has ever made an appointment for coffee with Mr Viljoen. He confirmed that he had a discussion with Mr Viljoen about his former life partner.
45. He stated that he believed that Learner A’s parent had a witch-hunt against him because Learner A’s mother wanted to meet with Mr Viljoen for coffee and that everything started when Learner A was not appointed as the Head Girl. He referred to page 66 of EE and stated that he believed that Learner A’s parent were responsible for the newspaper article that was issued even before the SGB was informed of his precautionary transfer.
46. He confirmed that Ms Cronje was interviewed in March 2023 and that he was part of the panel. However, he disputed that he asked her a question that made her feel uncomfortable. He refuted the version that he made non-verbal gestures showing a round figure. He stated that he asked all the candidates the same question and the question was about how will she inspire girl learners since the group is focused on their bodies and they have eating disorders. He refuted the version that he said Ms Cronje was overweight. He disputed that he had any engagement with Learner B around August 2023 as there were no school functions at that time. He differed with the version that he hugged Learner B.
47. Mr Marius Botha (“Mr Botha”) testified under oath and stated that he was self-employed as a Consultant for private and public schools. He stated that Ms Heydenrych approached her at Castle Gate Shopping Complex on a Saturday and mentioned to him that she had a problem with a male employee at the school that made unwanted remarks. She did not mention any names. He testified that he advised her to lodge a grievance. She did not request him to take any steps and he also did not take any steps. He referred to the WhatsApp message on page 21 of EE supplementary bundle that Ms Heydenrych sent to him on 19 May 2023 and explained that the message clearly indicated that he must keep their discussions to himself as she did not want to lose her job and that she will stay out of the spotlight.
48. Under cross-examination, he stated that he did not have any knowledge of allegation 3. He was referred to his statement on page 95 of EE and he stated that Ms Heydenrych told him that she was uncomfortable about the inappropriate remarks made by a male employee. He restated that he advised her to follow the grievance procedure. He reiterated that Ms Heydenrych did not disclose any names to him. He stated that he thought he met Ms Heydenrych at Food Lovers, but he actually met her at Checkers.
49. Mr Hermanus van Zyl (“Mr van Zyl”) testified under oath and stated that he was self-employed as a Financial Broker and that he was a member of the SGB at Hoërskool Waterkloof for two (2) terms. He confirmed the correctness of his statement on page 94 of EE that he handed at SACE. He stated that Ms Heydenrych approached her at the parking lot at a the school and she mentioned that she was unhappy about the discussion that she had with Mr Denysschen and he advised her to follow the proper channels. He testified that he did not tell her that he will handle the matter.
50. Under cross-examination, he stated that Ms Heydenrych did not detail the conduct that she was unhappy about regarding Mr Denysschen when they were at the parking lot. He confirmed that he would not know if Mr Denysschen said what is alleged by Ms Heydenrych and submitted that Ms Heydenrych informed him that she was traumatized by the utterances.
51. Learner C testified under oath and stated that she was a Grade 12 learner at Hoërskool Waterkloof in 2025. She testified that on the morning of Mr Denysschen’s birthday, between 60 and 63 Klofieraad members waited for him in his office to surprise him. After giving him a present and congratulated him for his birthday, he stood up from his table and stood at the door. She stated that she knew Learner A and that Learner A was also present in Mr Denysschen’s office, but she could recall the interaction between Learner A and Mr Denysschen. She testified that she only heard about Learner A’s compliant at the beginning of 2025.
52. Under cross-examination, she reiterated that she did not see the interaction between Learner A and Mr Denysschen as she was not focusing on that. She stated that she did not think that allegation 1 was true in any way. If it has happened, Learner A would have reacted immediately. Instead, she walked out of the office normally. She submitted that the interaction between Mr Denysschen and the learners lasted for about one second in a room full of people. Therefore, people would have noticed what Learner A is complaining about. She confirmed that she did not see whether Mr Denysschen hugged or shook Learner A’s hand. She did not observe Mr Denysschen’s abduction by the learners on his birthday, but she that it was tradition for the head boy and girl to abduct the principal. She conceded that she cannot second guess how Learner A felt at that time.
53. Mr Nols Nolte (“Mr Nolte”) testified and stated that he was an attorney and that he assisted Mr Denysschen in his criminal cases. He testified that he went to the police station in the company of Mr Denysschen on two (2) different occasions. On the first occasion, it was for Mr Viljoen’s case and on the second occasion, it was for Learner A’s case. On both visits, the Investigating Officer read the statements of the complainants to him and he took notes. He testified that what was read from Learner A’s statement was that the leaders of different grades went to the Principal’s office to congratulate him on his birthday. The learners stood in a queue and Learner A noticed that girl learners were getting hugs and boy learners were getting handshakes. Learner A said she gave the Principal a shoulder, but the Principal turned her around and pulled her towards him and gave her a full body hug. Learner A stated in her statement that during the school function, she noticed the Principal hugging girl learners the way he hugged her. He submitted that he told the Investigation Officer that it was puzzling that no other learners complaint about sexual harassment. With regard to allegation 4, he stated that on Mr Viljoen’s statement, there was an inconsistency on the date of the docket and the date of the statement. That is, 26 September 2023 and 26 September 2024. However, he ascribed this to a bona fide error. He stated that Mr Denysschen phone his PA to check his diary and it was confirmed that there was no appointment for 26 September 2023. He stated that there was no mention of Mr Denysschen asking Mr Viljoen about what he did with his partner when they were in bed. The only complain was about a hug that Mr Denysschen gave him.
54. Under cross-examination, he confirmed that Learner A’s statement was read to him at the police station and that he took notes so that he can prepare a warning statement. He stated that he did not see Learner A at the function of 16 August 2024 and stated that he saw in the her affidavit at the police station that she saw the Principal hugging other learners in front of their parents. He conceded that he was not at the school on 16 August 2024. He conceded that he did not see Mr Denysschen hugging Learner A. he conceded that he had no knowledge of what transpired at the school. With regard to allegation 4, he stated that he did not know the type of relationship that Messrs Denysschen and Viljoen had. He stated that he can only testify about what was read to him from his police affidavit. He restated that no mention was made about what he did in bed with his partner.
55. Mr Leon Coetzer (“Mr Coetzer”) testified under oath and stated that he was an Educator at Hoërskool Waterkloof for over twenty five (25) year. He stated that he was involved in the interview where Ms Cronje was a candidate. He said that other panel members were Mr Denysschen, Ms Andre Campbell and Ms Taute. He stated that there were structured questions that were asked to all candidates. However, there would be follow up questions that would be asked to candidates. He could not recall Mr Denysschen telling Ms Cronje that she was overweight. He stated that there were questions that were asked that were related to obesity and that question was asked by Mr Denysschen to all the candidates. There was at no stage where Mr Denysschen made any gestures when he asked that question. He submitted that page 61 of EE was not a true reflection of what transpired during the interview. He further stated that he has a very good relationship with Ms Cronje and that she never complained to him.
56. Under cross-examination, he stated that he only learned about Ms Cronje’s complaint when this case started. He stated that he was aware of the grievance procedure, but he did not feature anywhere in the grievance process. He stated that he could not recall how the questions for the interview were formulated and that he knew that there were six (6) questions, but he could not recall all the questions. He confirmed that the question about how will you inspire girl learners was asked by Mr Denysschen. He disputed that Mr Denysschen mentioned that Ms Cronje was overweight. He conceded that he did not know that Ms Cronje reported the matter to Ms Taute. He did not know that Ms Cronje went to a life coach to lose weight because of the trauma. He stated that he congratulated her for losing weight.
57. Mr Wickus Jacobus Smit (“Mr Smit”) testified under oath and stated that he was an Educator at Hoërskool Waterkloof. He was referred to page 87 of EE and he stated that he was not in Mr Denysschen’s office when the alleged incident occurred.
58. Under cross-examination, he confirmed that he was not in Mr Denysschen’s office on the day of the alleged incident.
59. Mr Stefan Coetzer (“Mr Coetzer Jnr”) testified under oath and stated that he was a Grade 8 to 12 for Life Orientation Educator at Hoërskool Waterkloof appointed by the SGB. He stated that he knew Ms Heydenrych from around 2002. He could not recall the topic that he was busy discussing with the learner, but it was not a topic related to sex education. He testified that he was called into Mr Denysschen’s office to discuss the hostel rules and the old boys’ alumni. He then asked Mr Denysschen about a question that he was asked in class. He stated that it was only him and Mr Denysschen in his office. He stated that Mr Denysschen called Ms Heydenrych on a speaker phone and told her that he was with Mr Coetzer Jnr. Mr Denysschen told Ms Heydenrych that Mr Coetzer was moving into the hostel and they (Mr Denysschen and Ms Heydenrych) laughed because Mr Coetzer Jnr was not the sweetest kid at school. Mr Denysschen then told her what happened in Mr Coetzer Jnr’s class. She replied that he must ask the Biology teacher and Mr Denysschen did not reiterate his question. He stated that there was no conversation that took place between Mr Denysschen and Ms Heydenrych. Ms Heydenrych only said he must ask the Biology teacher. He testified that he wrote the addendum to his statement (page 92 of EE) on the behest of Mr Denysschen. He stated that he only heard about Ms Heydenrych’s complaint after about a year and that Ms Heydenrych did not take up this issue with him. He stopped being friendly with her because she told the hostel father that he (Mr Coetzer Jnr) no longer greeted him, but they are now in good talking terms.
60. Under cross-examination, he submitted that Mr Moelens was his Departmental Head and he reports to him when there are problems with the subject that he was teaching. He stated that he did not report the subject matter to his DH because he thought he handled the matter correctly. So when he was called to the Principal’s office, he took the opportunity to tell him. He conceded that the question that he was allegedly asked in class was full of sexual connotations. He conceded that he did not ask Mr Denysschen to ask Ms Heydenrych that question. He thought that Ms Heydenrych was asked that question because he was a busy body during his school days and he was not engaged at the time when he moved into the hostel. He conceded that it was not Ms Heydenrych’s responsibility to look after him at the hostel. He conceded that the question that the learner asked was inappropriate. He submitted that the question was not conveyed to Ms Heydenrych, but she was told what has happened in Mr Coetzer Jnr’s class.

Closing arguments

61. Parties submitted extensive closing arguments in this matter. The Employer’s closing arguments consisted of twenty three (23) pages and the Employee’s consisted of eighty four (84) pages. I have duly considered both the closing arguments and they will be referred in my analysis where necessary.

Analysis of evidence and argument

62. It is trite that in such proceedings, the employer bears the onus to prove on a balance of probabilities that the employee has indeed transgressed as alleged. I was confronted with two mutually destructive versions in these proceedings. Therefore, the principles enunciated in the Stellenbosch Farmers’ Winery judgment will be of relevance in making a proper determination in this matter. These principles are: the credibility of witnesses, the reliability of witnesses and the probability of the respective versions.
63. It must be noted that some of the allegations that were preferred against Mr Denysschen allegedly happened as far back as March 2022, but they were “formally” reported in the year 2024. Therefore, it is to be expected that the witnesses’ recollection of events would be blurry. I must also indicate that the Employer made an application, which was granted, for the learner who was above eighteen (18) years to testify with the aid of an intermediary. I must further indicate that the incidents involving the learners allegedly occurred between 2022 and 2024 when they were still minors.
64. It is common cause that the Employee pleaded not guilty to all the allegations were leveled against him. The Employee, from the onset, contended that there was a witch-hunt against him by Learner A’s parents. The witch-hunt narrative was on the basis that the allegations were publicized in the media platforms even before his precautionary transfer of 12 September 2024 was made known to the SGB. Indeed, there were media statements that were made shortly after the Employee was served with the precautionary transfer letter. Thereafter, there has been a plethora of media publication relating to the allegations that were preferred against the Employee. I concur with the Employee’s argument that the dissemination of these media statements could not have been caused by the Employer. I further agree with the Employee that the only reasonable conclusion is that the media statements were leaked by the complainants, either all or some, in this matter.
65. The allegations against the Employee dates as far back as the year 2022 and all the complainants formally reported their complaints only from around September 2024. It is on record that Learner A was nominated for the Head Girl position, but she was not appointed. The elections thereof took place on 09 July 2024. The first formally reported allegation related to Learner A about the incident of 16 August 2024 during the Employee’s birthday. Then, all the other allegations emerged. Now, my view is that for the Employee’s narrative to succeed, there must be a nexus connection between the allegations levelled against him and the supposed witch-hunt by Learner A’s parents.
66. It is common cause that the majority of the complainants in this matter were represented by Mr Hefferman. It was established during these proceedings that Ms Heydenrych consulted with Mr Hefferman and she instructed Mr Hefferman to issue letters to, amongst others, Mr Coetzer Jnr. The purpose of these letters was to caution the recipients that they must desist from making defamatory remarks against Ms Heydenrych. The alleged defamatory remarks emanated after Ms Heydenrych lodged a formal complaint against the Employee. During cross-examination, Ms Heydenrych was not truthful about her interaction with Mr Potgieter (the former Principal). It was also not disputed that Mr Potgieter and Learner A’s father were friends. It must be noted that Ms Heydenrych incident allegedly occurred on 18 May 2023 and that she only reported it formally in September 2024. Incidentally, her complaint was formally lodged around the time Learner A’s complaint was lodged. It is common cause that Learner A’s mother tried to secure an appointment on 12 September 2024 with Mr Viljoen to have coffee. It was established that Mr Viljoen did not teach Learner A and that he did not have any interaction with Learner A. Therefore, the only logical inference that can be drawn is that Learner A’s mother wanted to discuss the allegations that were levelled against the Employee with Mr Viljoen. The resultant effect of that discussion would have been to ensure that the complainants against the Employee are united in pursuing their claims against the Employee.
67. I find it improbable that Mr Hefferman acted out of his own accord to call a press conference for 02 July 2025 in the middle of these proceedings. In fact, Mr Hefferman stated in the letter dated 28 June 2025 that he was acting on instructions. It is my considered view that the instructions can only be from his clients who are complainants and witnesses in these proceedings. It is therefore not farfetched that even the previous press releases were caused by Mr Hefferman on instructions from his clients. I can therefore safely conclude that Learner A’s parents were instrumental in ensuring that the allegations against the Employee are ventilated.
68. I will now turn to test the veracity of these allegations. The Employer preferred all the allegations against the Employee in terms of section 18(1)q) of the Employment of the Educators Act. In this section, misconduct refers to a breakdown in the employment relationship and an educator commits misconduct if he or she while on duty, conducts himself or herself in an improper, disgraceful or unacceptable manner.
69. It is trite that educators’ conduct is regulated by SACE Code of Professional Ethics for Educators. Clause 3 and 6 of the Code prescribes the manner in which an educator must conduct him / herself with learners and colleagues, respectively. The Employee is on record that he has about twenty five (25) years’ experience as an Educator and that he has been a Principal for about fourteen (14) years. He attested that he was familiar with the Code of Conduct for Educators and that he has never been charged for misconduct before.
70. I do not propose to deal with the allegations in their sequence as captured in the notice of the disciplinary hearing. I will first deal with allegation 2 where it is alleged that the Employee told girl learners that they are seductive and if they wore clothes with open shoulders, they should cover up. This incident allegedly took place in the year 2022. No exact date was stipulated. It was the evidence of Learner A and B that the Employee made an announcement on the PA system (intercom) a day preceding civvies day. It is not in dispute that there was no complaint that was lodged on the day of the incident or soon thereafter by anyone from the school or parents. The complaint was only lodged around September 2024. Safe for Learner A informing her mother on the same day of the alleged incident about the announcement. Only Learner A and B testified on this allegation. The Employee testified that there are about 2 400 learners and about 300 educators at the school. Surely, the announcement on the intercom was heard by everyone in the school premises. I find it improbable that the announcement was improper, disgraceful and unacceptable to only Learner A and B. There were inherent and external contradictions on both Learner A and Learner B. Learner A did not mention in her oral evidence that the clothing must cover their knees. The allegation in its formulation did not include open knees. However, in her statement she made mention of the knees. Both Learner A and B mentioned for the first time in their oral evidence that open clothing will arouse male educators. I therefore find that their versions are inconsistent and are devoid of the truth. Consequently, I find that there are no merits to allegation 2. As a result, I find the Employee not guilty of the alleged misconduct.
71. With regard to allegation 4, the incident allegedly took place in the Employee’s office in October 2023. It is common cause that Mr Viljoen opened a case a SAPS against the Employee in September 2024 and lodged a complaint with the Employer around October 2024 when the Departmental officials visited the school to investigate other allegations against the Employee. Under cross-examination, he submitted that he reported the incident before to this Departmental Head. He stated that the reason that he decided to report the incident was because he wanted to stand up for himself and to protect other educators. Mr Viljoen testified that he did not have any reason to fabricate lies about the Employee. The Employee’s defence was that during the period of the alleged incident, he was a very busy person that he would have had time to invite Mr Viljoen for coffee. He further stated he has a very strict personal assistant who always diarizes appointments in his diary and that there was no such appointment around the period in question. Mr Viljoen’s evidence was consistent during his evidence in chief and during cross examination. He came across as a credible and reliable witness. I do not have any reason to second-guess his testimony. I therefore find the Employee guilt of allegation 4.
72. It is common cause that there was an interview for the Grade Head in March 2022 and Ms Cronje was one of the candidates that was interviewed for the position. It was Ms Cronje’s testimony that the interview panel consisted of the Employee, Ms Taute, Ms Campbell and Mr Duan Viljoen (the boys’ head). On the other hand, it was the Employee’s version that Mr Duan Viljoen was not part of the panel, but Mr Leon Coetzer was part of the panel as a Grade Head at the time. Mr Duan Viljoen was not called to testify in these proceedings. Ms Cronje’s testimony that Mr Duan Viljoen was the Grade Head at the time was not disputed. Her evidence that Mr Coetzer was in the panel for the second interview that she attended was not disputed. Therefore, I find that Mr Coetzer was not part of the panel. The Employee called Mr Leon Coetzer as a witness. Mr Leon Coetzer asserted that he was part of the panel and his assertion was disputed. It was not disputed that the panel had standardized questions for all the candidates and that there would be a follow up question depending on a response to a question. The Employee, Mr Leon Coetzer and Ms Cronje were of common minds that the Employee asked Ms Cronje how will she inspire girls in that certain grade since the group was focused on their bodies and have eating disorders.
73. However, the bone of contention in this allegation centred on the utterance by the Employee that Ms Cronje did not fit the picture for the position as she was overweight. In her evidence in chief, Ms Cronje stated that the Employee made hand gestures indicating a round figure when he asked her the question. Ms Cronje stated when the Employee asked that question, Ms Campbell protested and that after the interview, Ms Taute called her to her office and asked her how she was feeling. The Employee indicated that Ms Taute will be called as a witness, but for reasons only known to him, she was not called. The only inference that I can draw for her not to testify is that the Employee realised that Ms Taute might concede that she had a discussion with Ms Cronje about the interview. It was her testimony that she lost 54 kg as a result of the humiliation. The Employee did not dispute that Ms Cronje lost weight. Ms Cronje impressed me as witness even under intense cross-examination she remained resolute that the Employee body shamed her. The Employee’s defence was bare denial. Ms Cronje did not have any motive to implicate the Employee. I therefore find the Employee guilty of allegation 5.
74. It is common cause that the Employee made a call to Ms Heydenrych whilst on speaker phone on 18 May 2023. It is common cause that Ms Heydenrych is not an Educator, but a Food and Beverages Manager at the hostel. It therefore follows that she does not have anything to do with the curriculum matters. As per her testimony, the Employee informed her that she was on a speaker phone with two (2) male educators, being Messrs Coetzer Jnr and Smit. The version that Mr Smit was in the Employee’s office was rebutted and Mr Smit testified to that effect. Ms Heydenrych did not mention in her statement or in her oral evidence that the Employee mentioned that the question that he was about to ask her came from a learner before posing the question. According to the Employee, he did not ask her a question, but instead he narrated what a learner had asked Mr Coetzer Jnr in class.
75. The Employee challenged the manner in which Ms Heydenrych phrased the said question and stated that the question was ‘if two people of the opposite sex are having sex and one farts, does it stop? As per Mr Coetzer Jnr’s statement, the question was phrased as follows: ‘Sir, if two people have sex and one person farts, what happens? Does it stop? Ms Crouse coined the question as follows: if two people were in the process of having sex and just before they finish, one person farts, is it over or do they just continue? Lastly, Ms Heydenrych coined the question as follows in her evidence in chief: if two people of the opposite sex were having sex, what would happen during climax if one of them farts? And as follows in her statement: if two people of the opposing gender are having sex and one of them farts right before the climax, what happens to the climax?
76. There are so many inherent inconsistencies on this one question by all these witnesses on how was the question phrased. The Employee’s version is that the originator of this question was a learner in Mr Coetzer Jnr’s class and the Employee was allegedly informed about this question by Mr Coetzer Jnr. Therefore, Mr Coetzer Jnr has the first-hand knowledge of how the learner posed the question. From the learner to Mr Coetzer Jnr to the Employee to Ms Heydenrych and to Ms Crouse there were definitely filters and it is to be expected that the question will be concocted from one person to the next. Therefore, I will not attach any weight to these inconsistencies on how each witness restated this question. However, I must indicate my concern about how Ms Taute dealt with Ms Heydenrych’s complaint. The unchallenged version of Mesdames Heydenrych and Crouse was that Ms Heydenrych reported the matter to Ms Taute (HR) and Ms Taute instead of addressing the complaint; she treated it as a joke. As already stated hereinabove, Ms Taute was not called to testify. The only inference that one can draw from Ms Taute not testifying in these proceedings is that she was made aware of the complaint. I am alive to the fact that Ms Heydenrych informed Mr Botha that she did not what him to take the matter any further and that Mr van Zyl testified that he was told that she did not want him to take the matter further. However, it is my view that it was incumbent on them to take the matter further on their own accord to prevent any recurrence.
77. The Employee contended that he did not actually ask Ms Heydenrych a question. Instead, he narrated to her what a learner has said in class and he wanted Ms Heydenrych to look after Mr Coetzer Jnr at the hostel since he has moved in earlier in that week. Mr Coetzer Jnr testified that he was inducted when he moved in at the hostel. The Employee confirmed under cross-examination that it was not Ms Heydenrych duty and responsibly to look after hostel tenants. His rationale for requesting Ms Heydenrych to look after Mr Coetzer Jnr was informed by Mr Coetzer Jnr’s reputation as a young man. I find it difficult to reconcile the connection between the question asked by a learner in class and of Mr Coetzer Jnr’s reputation. The difficulty that I have is that Ms Heydenrych has nothing to do with curriculum of the school and she is not involved with accommodation at the hostel. If indeed the Employee had concerns about Mr Coetzer Jnr’s reputation, he should have brought that to the attention of the hostel father. The hostel father was a better placed person to deal with accommodation issues and the HOD was better placed to deal with the curriculum matters.
78. The Employee in these proceedings and in his heads of arguments sought to discredit Ms Heydenrych as a witness. I concur that Ms Heydenrych was evasive in some aspects of her evidence. Aspects such as her interaction with Mr Potgieter; her instructions to Mr Hefferman; her call to Mr Botha. However, this does not take away the fact that the Employee made an unpalatable statement to Ms Heydenrych that left her feeling humiliated, embarrassed and cheap and instead of owning up to his misdemeanour, he chose to divert the focus to peripheral issues. This being said, I find that the Employer succeeded in discharging its burden of proof with regard to allegation 3. Therefore, I find the Employee guilty as charged.
79. Lastly, I will deal with allegation 1 and 6, respectively. It is a fact that it was the Employee’s birthday on 16 August 2024 and there were congratulatory birthday wishes throughout the day and the Employee was again celebrated in the school event that evening by both learners and parents. It is common cause that the Klofieraad members gathered in the Employee’s office in the morning to congratulate him on his birthday. It is also common cause that the Employee hugged some learners and shook hands with others. The Employee did not recall whether Learner A was present in his office on that day or not. However, Learner C confirmed that she saw Learner A in the Employee’s office. Therefore, Learner C’s evidence accords with Learner A’s evidence that she was indeed in the Employee’s office.
80. Learner A with regard to allegation 1 was consistent in her evidence in chief as well as under cross examination that she did not invite the Employee to hug her. She stated that she preferred to give the Employee a handshake. Learner C is on record that she did not recall seeing the interaction between the Employee and Learner A. She did not know whether the Employee and Learner A hugged or shook hands. The Employee himself did not have any recollection of interacting with Learner A. However, he could not gainsay Learner A’s presence.
81. It was the Employee’s testimony that he found about seventy (70) learners already in his office. Learner C stated that there were about sixty (60) to sixty three (63) learners that were waiting for the Employee in his office. Learner A stated that they waited outside the Employee’s office and they entered one by one to congratulate him. Par. 64 of the Employee’s heads of arguments actually supports Learner A’s version that the Grade 11 leadership were already waiting outside the office. Learner A was in Grade 11 in the year 2024. Therefore, her version is correct that her group was waiting outside. Thus, I find that there is an inherent contradiction and inconsistency in the Employee’s version. As a result, the Employee’s version stands to be dismissed and Learner A’s version remain the probable version.
82. Mr Nolte’s testimony did not assist much in these proceedings. His testimony was based on the SAPS statement that Learner A deposed of. The statement was read to him. He did not read the statement. The said statement was not made available in these proceedings probably on the ground of recognised privilege. Therefore, I am not going to attach much weight to his testimony.
83. The Employee took Learner A to town about how the hug was performed and concluded that her demonstration of the hug in these proceedings was physically impossible. It must be remembered that the alleged hug in the Employee’s office was impromptu and therefore it cannot be repeated. However, this does not take away the fact that the Employee hugged Learner A and that hug was unwanted and uncomfortable. Consequently, I find that the Employer, on a balance of probabilities, succeeded in discharging its burden of proof. As a result, I find the Employee guilty of allegation 1.
84. With regard to allegation 6, the Employee disputed that she interacted with Learner B on that day in question. The Employee stated that on that he went to open the ceremony at around 17h45 and thereafter, he went to sit with his family until the end of the ceremony. This version was not challenged. Learner B stated that the incident occurred after 18h00. Learner B testified that she was with two (2) male learners when they greeted the Employee. However, her male friends did not see the alleged incident despite being in her close proximity. She further testified that she reported the incident to her mother who was also at the ceremony. Her mother did not take any action to report the incident. As per Learner B, she dissuaded her mother to report the incident for fear of rebuke. This fear was as a result of an earlier incident with an English teacher that he reported, but instead she was shouted at. It would have assisted these proceedings if her mother was called to testify and caused her original statement be made available in these proceedings to substantiate this claim. The statement that Learner B provided in these proceedings was clearly not her original statement as could be seen from the metadata thereof. In the end, I find that the Employer failed to discharge its burden of proof in this regard.
85. In terms of chapter 3 of the South African Council of Ethics (“SACE”) Code of Professional Ethics, an Educator must:
     avoid any form of humiliation and refrains from any form of abuse, physical or psychological;
     refrain from any form of sexual harassment (physical or otherwise) of learners;
     use appropriate language and behaviour in his or her interaction with learners and act in such a way as to elicit respect from the learners
86. It is my finding that Mr Denysschen contravened the prescripts of the SACE Code and he was not remorseful about his actions. It is common cause that Mr Chris Denysschen was charged in terms of section 18 of the Employment of Educators Act. However, having considered that he was entrusted with the care of children and that it was expected of him to act with the utmost good faith in his conduct towards learners as society must be able to trust him as an educator unconditionally with children, I find that dismissal is the only appropriate sanction.

Award

87. I find Mr Chris Denysschen GUILTY on allegation 1, 3, 4 and 5 and NOT GUILY on allegation 2 and 6.
88. In view of my guilty finding on these allegations, I find that dismissal would be appropriate under the circumstances.
89. I also find that Mr Chris Denysschen is unsuitable to work with children in terms of section 120(4) of the Children’s Act 38 of 2005. The General Secretary of the Council must, in terms of section 120(1) of the Children’s Act 38 of 2005, notify the Director General: Department of Social Development in writing of the finding of this forum made in terms of section 120(4) of the Children’s Act 38 of 2005 that Mr Chris Denysschen is unsuitable to work with children, for the Director General to enter his name as contemplated in section 120 in part B of the register.
90. I further find that the Educator, Mr Chris Denysschen, as a consequence to the transgression as referred in allegation 1, 3, 4 and 5 is in breach of the SACE Code of Professional Ethics as prescribed in terms of the South African Council of Educators Act 31 of 2000. In terms of clause 5.4 of of ELRC Collective Agreement 3 of 2018, the General Secretary shall send a copy of this award to the South African Council of Educators.

Arbitrator: Themba Manganyi