HEAD OF DEPARTMENT: GAUTENG DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION EMPLOYER

and

MR RHULANI CHABALALA EMPLOYEE

Details of hearing and representation

1. This is an arbitration award issued in terms of section 138(7) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (“the LRA”), as amended, emanating from an Inquiry by Arbitrator process conducted on 02 March 2026 at Gauteng Department of Education Head Office at Marshalltown under the auspices of the Education Labour Relations Council (“the Council”).
2. Ms Pulane Tafane (“Ms Tafane”), the Labour Relations Officer, represented the Employer, the Head of Department: Gauteng Department of Education. Mr Kgotla Molefe (“Mr Molefe”), a SADTU Official represented the Employee, Mr Rhulani Chabalala (“Mr Chabalala”). Ms Mule Padi and Mr Marvin Seale, the Intermediary and the Interpreter respectively, attended these proceedings.
3. The Employer submitted the only bundle of documents into the record and the veracity of the contents thereof was not in dispute. The parties submitted their written heads of arguments on 05 March 2026. The proceedings were digitally recorded and the recording thereof was retained by the Council.

Issue/s to be decided

4. I am enjoined in these proceedings to determine if the allegation that was leveled against Mr Chabalala has merit. In the event that I find that the allegation has merit, I must determine the appropriate sanction.

Rights and the procedure

5. I have explained the rights that are afforded to an employee in these proceedings and the process flow was also explained. Mr Chabalala affirmed that he was afforded all the rights that are commensurate with a fair disciplinary hearing process and he also confirmed the he understood how the proceedings are going to unfold.

Allegation/s

6. Mr Chabalala was called upon to respond to the following allegation:

Allegation 1
It is alleged that on or around October 2025, as an educator at Boipelo Secondary School, you conducted yourself in an improper, disgraceful or unacceptable manner in that you made sexual advances to a Grade 9 learner, Learner BM, by sending her a WhatsApp message, requesting her to visit your place of residence and told her that you like “licking… s… nip… (Meaning licking pussy, bums and nipples). The learner’s name is concealed in this award

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 (“the EEA”), as amended.

Pleading

7. Mr Chabalala pleaded guilty to the allegation that was levelled against him. I checked with him if he understood what he pleaded guilty to and whether he was not coerced in any way, shape or form. He confirmed that he indeed sent the WhatsApp messages to the learner as alleged and that he understood what his guilty plea meant. Having satisfied myself that Mr Chabalala entered into a guilty plea out of his own volition, I invited the parties to address me on the prescripts of section 120 of the Children’s Act 38 of 2005 in their closing arguments.

Survey of closing arguments

8. Parties submitted their heads of arguments as agreed and they were duly considered in the writing of this award. I will not restate them herein. However, I will refer to them where necessary. As per the prescript of section 138(7) of the LRA, this award is issued with my brief reasons and not a verbatim account of the parties’ submissions.

Analysis of arguments

9. From the onset, I must applaud Mr Chabalala for not wasting the Council’s time in defending the allegation that was levelled against him. His admission of guilt, to me, is a testament of an individual who is taking accountability of his action. Under different circumstances, I can vouch for him as a suitable candidate for progressive discipline.
10. The Employer preferred a charge in terms of section 18(1)(q) of the EEA against Mr Chabalala. Ordinarily, transgressions under this section do not attract a mandatory dismissal sanction. Mr Chabalala submitted that he has an unblemished disciplinary record since he was employed in the year 2013. He submitted that he was the sole breadwinner supporting his siblings who are still school going and his ailing father and that he has financial obligations for his creditors. He acknowledged that the rights of a learner are paramount as envisaged in section 28(2) of the Constitution of the Republic. He conceded that his conduct was inappropriate and that it breached the boundaries of professionalism. He submitted that his conduct was not repetitive and that it was limited to WhatsApp communication. He prayed for a sanction short of dismissal and substantiated his prayer by stating that section 18(1)(q) of the EEA does not prescribe mandatory dismissal as a sanction. I must state that I find the Employee’s submissions noble and his demeanour is indicative of a person that, given a chance, can mend his ways.
11. On the other hand, Ms Tafane submitted that Article 28(2) of the Convention on the Rights of the Children requires state parties to the Convention on the Right of the Child to take steps to ensure that school discipline is administered in a manner consistent with a child’s human dignity. She argued that Mr Chabalala violated the learner’s rights to human dignity and therefore his conduct must be corrected to avert similar conduct by other employees of the Department. She further argued that the Employer did not consider Mr Chabalala’s guilty plea as a sign of remorse as he was not supposed to have acted in this improper manner at all. She submitted that Mr Chabalala must be declared unfit to work with children.
12. I am alive to the fact that section 18 of the EEA does not prescribe a mandatory dismissal sanction for misconducts under this section. Therefore, in determining the fair sanction in this matter, Schedule 8 of the Code of Good Practice: Dismissal (“the Code”) is the guideline that I need to consider. Item 8 states that any person who is deciding whether a sanction for misconduct is fair should consider –
     whether the employee contravened a rule or standard regulating conduct in, or of relevance to, the workplace;
     if a rule or standard was contravened –
    (a) whether the rule was a valid or reasonable rule or standard;
    (b) whether the employee was aware, or could reasonably be expected to have been aware, of the rule or standard;
    (c) the importance of the rule or standard in the workplace;
    (d) the actual or potential harm or damage caused by the employee’s contravention of the rule or standard;
    (e) whether the rule or standard has been consistently applied by the employer; and
    (f) whether dismissal is an appropriate sanction for the contravention of the rule or standard.
13. As already stated herein-above, Mr Chabalala pleaded guilty to the allegation that was levelled against him. I have already stated that I have satisfied myself that Mr Chabalala entered into a guilty plea without any coercion or undue influence. It therefore follows that Mr Chabalala knew the existence of the rule and the reasonableness of the rule. He did not raise any issue about the rule being applied inconsistently by the Employer. Therefore, all that is left for me is to deal with the appropriate sanction.
14. Item 9 of the Code states that generally, dismissal is only an appropriate sanction if a continued employment relationship is intolerable. Factors to consider when determining this include –
    • the nature and requirements of the job;
    • the nature and seriousness of the misconduct and its effect on the business;
    • whether progressive discipline might prevent a recurrence of the misconduct;
    • any acknowledgement of wrongdoing by the employee and willingness to comply with the employer’s rules and standards; and
    • the employee’s circumstances (including length of service, disciplinary record and the effect of dismissal on the employee).
15. Our courts in all jurisdictions have always viewed any form of sexual inappropriate behaviour on the part of educators towards children, in the most serious light, justifying summary dismissal. The Labour Court too regards any form of sexual molestation or sexual harassment in the workplace as extremely serious, justifying dismissal. Educators are entrusted with the care of children and adolescents. Therefore they must act with the utmost good faith in their conduct towards learners as society must be able to trust educators unconditionally with children. If educators breach this trust, dismissal is generally the most appropriate sanction. I therefore find that, despite the remorseful demeanor of Mr Chabalala, his conduct is not aligned with a model educator and that he cannot be trusted to be in the vicinity of learners.
16. It is my finding that Mr Chabalala contravened the prescripts of the SACE Code. Mr Chabalala 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 under these circumstances.

Award

17. I confirm the guilty plea that the Employee, Mr Rhulani Chabalala, entered into. Thus, I find Mr Chabalala guilty of contravening the prescripts of section 18(1)(q) of the Employment of Educators Act 76 of 1998, as amended.
18. In view of my guilty finding on these allegations, I find that dismissal would be appropriate under the circumstances as it related to sexual advances on al learner.
19. I also find that Mr Rhulani Chabalala 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 Rhulani Chabalala 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.
20. I further find that the Employee, Mr Rhulani Chabalala, as a consequence to the transgression as referred in the allegation 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