IN THE EDUCATION LABOUR RELATIONS COUNCIL HELD IN BLOEMFONTEIN (FREESTATE PROVINCE)
Case No ELRC 341-25/26FS
In the matter between
FREESTATE DEPT OF EDUCATION EMPLOYER
and
I LETSIE EMPLOYEE
ARBITRATOR: Monde Boyce
HEARD: 27 June 2025, 28 August 2025, 29 September 2025 & 24 October 2025
CLOSING ARGUMENTS: 28 October 2025
DATE OF AWARD: 20 November 2025
AWARD
PARTICULARS OF PROCEEDINGS AND REPRESENTATION: [1] This is an inquiry scheduled by the ELRC in terms of Section 188A of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 as amended (LRA) and the inquiry proceeded at the Freestate Provincial offices at 67 Charlotte Maxeke Street in Bloemfontein on 27 June 2025, 28 August 2025, 29 September 2025 and was finalised on 24 October 2025. Both parties attended the inquiry with Mr Vuyisile Gibuza, the Manager: Labour Relations in the department, representing the employer while Mr Mbuyiselo Frans, the provincial organiser for the trade union SADTU, represented the employee.
[2] The delays in finalisation of the inquiry were necessitated by events that unfolded during the previous dates that the arbitration was scheduled for. On 28 August 2025 when the matter was scheduled to proceed after it had been postponed in June 2025, the concerned learner was too emotional to testify and kept crying, and the intermediary, the social worker and the learner’s mother all attested to this. The inquiry, for that reason, had to be adjourned. When the matter was scheduled to proceed on 29 September 2025, the matter had to be postponed because the learner had been admitted in hospital for psycho assessment.
THE ISSUE TO BE DECIDED:
[3] I am required to decide whether the educator is guilty of the charge preferred against him by the department, and to make the appropriate award.
THE BACKGROUND TO THE DISPUTE:[4] The employee, Mr Itumeleng Letsie is employed as an educator Post Level 1 at Mamellang Thuso Secondary School under the Lejweleputswa District in Bothaville. The employer suspended the employee following a complaint that he allegedly engaged in conduct that is in contravention of section 17 of the Employment of Educators Act 76 of 1998 (“the EEA”). The following charge was preferred against the employee:
Charge 1
“You have contravened section 17(1(b) of the Employment of Educators Act No 76 of 1998 in that on 17 May 2025 you committed an act of sexual assault when you had sexual intercourse with a Grade 9 learner…. (name withheld) of Mamellang Thuso Secondary School where you are employed.”
[5] The employee confirmed, after the charge had been read, that he understood the charge, and he pleaded NOT GUILTY to the charge.
SURVEY OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT:Employer’s Evidence
[6] Leaner A was called as the employer’s first witness. She knows the employee, Mr Letsie, and knows him as her class teacher at Mammelang Thuto Secondary School and had just turned 15 years old on the date of inquiry. On Friday of 16 May 2025, she sent the Mr Letsie a friend request on Facebook where she told him that her mother was requesting his contact details. But she wanted the contact numbers for herself. Mr Letsie sent her his cellphone number. On the morning of Saturday 17 May 2025, she sent the employee a message via Facebook Messenger saying, “Hi Vinnie”, but the employee did not respond although she could see that he read the message. Around 08h00 she sent another message to the employee greeting him and the employee responded. She asked him what he was doing to which he responded that he was driving. She requested to meet the employee at the park, and the employee went to the park to meet with her.
[7] When the employee arrived at the park, he asked her where she was. Her mother had told her to fold the laundry, but she abandoned the laundry to go to meet the employee. On arrival at the park, she found the employee and got inside his car. She greeted him, and he turned to face her and greeted her. The employee asked her if she loved him and told her that it was normal for a school learner to have romantic feelings towards an educator. She laughed and told him that if she had romantic feelings for him, she would tell him. The employee then said she was lying because she would never have approached him if she did not have feelings for him.
[8] Mr Letsie offered to accompany her home, but they ended up not going but stood outside the car. He came closer to her, took her hands and placed the over his shoulders and they kissed. The employee started becoming touchy, and she first reprimanded him eventually ended up allowing him to kiss her because she also got to enjoy the kiss. The employee repeatedly undressed her while she repeatedly pulled her clothes back on. The employee then turned her around and undressed her again, kissed her and penetrated her from behind while she was balancing her hands on the car seat.
[9] They continued having sex and she felt pain. After they were done, they got inside his car. She could see that her mother and her sibling were looking for her. The park is not far from her home, and she could see them from inside the employee’s car. She told the employee that her mother was looking for her because it was dark and probably wanted to lock the house. The employee asked if her mother saw her when she was going to meet him at the park, and she answered that she (mother) did not see her. The employee then told her that what happened was not supposed to have happened and that it was not what he wanted to do.
[10] After her mother locked the door, she got out and walked to her home while the employee slowly drove behind her. She entered the gate but found the door locked, but her mother had seen the employee’s car when the employee stopped briefly near the gate.
[11] The following day, her mother phoned her father and grandmother, and she gave her money to go to Qwaqwa but first sent her to collect her lunch boxes at Protea. She went to Protea where she met Khotso who she greeted and passed her to collect the lunch boxes. She told Khotso what happened the previous evening, and Khotso suggested that they go to Ms. Mpose who was a hairdresser who was familiar with her mother. On arrival at Ms. Mpose’s house, Khotso told Ms. Mpose that her (learner A) mother had chased her away because she had met with the employee. Ms. Mpose asked for the employee’s contact number. She sent the employee a message via Facebook Messenger asking for the employee’s contact numbers, to which the employee responded that he had sent the number the previous day.
[12] She told Ms. Mpose, when she asked her, that she did not want to get the employee arrested. Ms. Mpose said they must approach a lady who was an educator at another school. This was because she told Ms. Mpose that she had no intention of opening a case against the employee. Khotso approached another community member, Koketso. Khotso explained what happened, to which Koketso asked her if she wanted to open a case against the educator. Her response was that she did not.
[13] Koketso went to the hospital and explained to the doctor what had happened. The doctor told Koketso that he could not examine her without a case number. She did not accompany Koketso to the hospital and had remained behind with Khotso and Ms. Mpose. Khotso persisted that they go to the police station and told her that he was not going to be dictated to by a minor. She then insisted that they go to the police station to open a case. They went to the police station where Khotso gave a statement. She, however, again told them that she did not want to give a statement as she had no intention of opening a case against the educator. A case was nonetheless opened at Bothaville police station.
[14] After opening the case with the police, she had tried to withdraw the case because she was not willing to open the case. She went to Welkom police station in Welkom and travelled in the employee’s white VW Polo vehicle with her mother, Khotso and Khani where she tried to withdraw the case. She is fine with what happened and wished to put the incident to rest. She further wished that the employee would be reinstated because she never opened a case against him and is at peace with what happened between them and just wanted to continue with school.
[15] Ms. Talita Kgomotsegang Bob was called as the employer’s next witness. She testified that learner A had a fight with her aunt where she stole a car from her aunt’s home. Learner A, after the incident, asked to see the community social worker where she told the community social worker that her aunt was getting money from the educator and that she was now suicidal. The community social worker took learner A to the hospital. Learner A’s biological mother is deceased, and she refers to her aunt as her mother. A case was opened against learner A’s aunt after learner A had been admitted for psychiatric evaluation.
Employee’s Evidence
[16] The employee, Mr Itumeleng Ephraim Letsie, testified that he is currently employed as an educator Mamellang Thuto Secondary School in Bothaville and has worked at the school for more than ten years. In those ten years, he had never been charged for misconduct. He is aware, since the first day he started working that any sexual assault or sexual relations with learners is not allowed. He did not have sexual intercourse with learner A as alleged. He did not know why learner A would single him out of other teacher and believed that learner A did so because he was her class teacher. He also believed that learner A accused him of sexual assault because she had made advances towards him.
[17] What happened on 16 May 2025, which was a Friday, was that he received a text message from learner A stating that her mother was requesting his cellphone number. He did give learner A his contact number the same day. During classes later that day, he asked learner A why her mother wanted his contact number, to which learner A responded that she did not know why. He proceeded to ask learner A where she was residing so that if there be anything urgent, he could go to her home after school. Learner A told him that she was staying next to the park, and learner A proceeded to give him directions to her home.
[18] The following day on 17 May 2025, he received another Facebook Messenger inbox message from learner A where she wrote “Hi Vinnie”. He ignored the message because he knew what she was going to say, which was that she was going to remind him about his having promised to visit her mother. After learner A sent the message, he did not respond immediately but, around 14h00 he sent a message to her saying “askies man”. This was for having stood up learner A’s and her mother. Around 19h00 learner A sent her another message asking what he was doing, to which he responded that he was driving to town. Learner A then asked why he did not come by her home because he was driving to town. He told learner A that he was coming by, and when he arrived at the park, he sent a message to learner A to say she and her mother could come out.
[19] Only learner A however came to him. He asked learner A where her mother was, to which learner A responded that she was coming. He asked if her mother told her anything, and learner A’s response was that her mother did not tell her anything. He got out of the car and lit a cigarette. Learner A however asked him to put off the cigarette and proceeded to tell him that there was something she wanted to tell him. The area where he parked was closer to the houses and facing the house where learner A stayed. Someone in the house could see the car. Learner A then told him that she loved him. He asked her how she loved him because he was like a father figure to her. He then opened the door for her and asked her to come out so they could go and finish what they were talking about in the presence of her mother. He told her that he could not date her because she was a minor and that he was an educator and that such relationship would be dangerous for him. He then told learner A that he hoped she did not come to entrap him.
[20] When he opened the door and asked learner A to get out of the car, learner A held his hand and tried to kiss him, and he stopped her, and learner A slammed the door of his car and went home. He told learner A that he was going to come the following Monday and report her to her mother. He spent about six minutes with learner A at the park and there were people inside the park who were walking by to houses closer to the park.
[21] He saw learner A’s mother and sister at the front of the house. Learner A’s mother saw his car which she (learner A’s mother) is familiar with. If he turned learner A around and had intercourse with her, same would not have been possible when her mother and people passing by and cameras installed at the park could have seen them. He did not kiss learner A and did not undress learner A as she claimed. He could not have done that when he was the one who had told learner A that he could not be in a romantical relationship with her.
[22] On Sunday 18 May 2025 he received a text message from learner A asking for his contact number to which he responded by asking what she was going to do with the number as he had already sent them. On Monday 19 May 2025, he received a call from his former colleague who asked about his whereabouts and asked where he was. When asking his former colleague about the reason for the call, his former colleague told him that there was a minor who wanted to open a case against him saying that they had intercourse. He left school and went to learner’s home because learner A was not at school. But when he arrived at learner A’s home, he did not find anyone inside.
[23] He phoned his brother and told him about the accusations, and his brother asked him to come over. His brother called learner A’s father who told his brother that they, as parents, had not opened a case but that people from the street committee had opened the case. If he had committed the offence as alleged, he would not have allowed his brother to call learner A’s father especially when police were now involved. Learner A’s father asked him to go to learner A’s home and enquire as to who it was that opened a case against him. He drove to learner ‘s home but did not find learner A but her mother. He narrated what happened to her, and learner A’s mother said she did not open the case against him. While they were still talking, Khotso and Khali arrived with one of them having helped learner A to open the case, and he started explaining to them what happened. While he was still explaining, learner A arrived and said she did not want to open a case, but that Khotso had influenced her to open a case, and the sexual encounter did not happen. Khotso then apologised. Learner A’s father asked learner’s A’s mother to take the people in the house and go to Welkom to withdraw the case. Because learner A’s mother said she did not have petrol, he offered to drive them to Welkom. All five of them drove to Welkom.
[24] On arrival at the police station, he left them to do what they were there to do, and he handed himself over to the police. He handed himself over because a case had been opened and the incident went viral on social media. He was locked up from the 21st until the 23rd of May 2025 when he was released on bail.
[25] He never intimidated or bribed learner A’s mother in order to stop her from opening a case. He had gone to learner A’s parents after his release on bail to try and explain what had happened. He did not put some of the version he later raised to learner A because he believed he would explain all that when it was his turn to testify. He did not have sexual intercourse with learner A, but learner A was forced by Khotso to open a case.
ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT
[26] The trite requirement in law is that a party making allegations must prove such allegations. In disciplinary enquires as is the case in unfair dismissal arbitration, an employer is required to prove allegations against an accused employee. To the extent that the department preferred a charge against the educator, Mr Letsie, the department needed to prove the charge preferred against Mr Letsie in terms of section 17. In doing so, the department led evidence of two witnesses, the learner and the social worker.
[27] Section 17(1)(b) of the EEA provides that an educator who commits an act of sexual assault on a learner, student or other employee contravenes the provisions of this section, and the section identifies such conduct as serious. The SACE Code of Professional Ethics sets out conduct that educators must refrain from and amongst such is that an educator must refrain from improper physical contact with learners, refrain from any form of sexual harassment (physical or otherwise) of learners and must refrain from any form of sexual relationship with learners from any school. The SACE Code is commonly known to all educators, and the employee would have been made familiar with the Code when he took up employment at the school as an educator.
[28] The Code serves as a safeguard against conduct that is unbecoming from educators. The Code is a product of the EEA which specifies what amounts to serious misconduct on the part of educators at school. But even if the Code was not there, an educator at any school stands in the place of a parent. In other words, while at school, learners are in the care of educators who spend most of the time with learners. The nature of the profession itself calls for educators to treat learners as if they were their own. Thus, an educator who engages in any conduct that seeks to undermine the bodily integrity of learners must be frowned upon. Section 18(1)(q) of the EEA provides that an educator who conducts himself or herself in an improper, disgraceful or unacceptable manner whilst on duty commits misconduct.
[29] The allegation against Mr Letsie is that he contravened provisions of the EEA providing that an educator who engages in a sexual relationship commits serios misconduct. I must mention that when the incident occurred, only Mr Letsie and the learner were involved. There was thus no other person who could attest to what happened at the park. But evidence led by both Mr Letsie and the learner does not materially differ. There was no dispute that learner A did send Mr Letsie the Facebook friend request and that, on the learner asking for the contact details, Mr Letsie did give the learner his contact number. There is further no dispute that, at the behest of the learner, Mr Letsie travelled to the park nearer to the learner’s home. There is further no dispute that the employee and the learner sat in the employee’s car. The only issue in dispute is whether the employee and the learner had sexual intercourse. Learner A was emphatic that she had sexual intercourse with the employee after they had kissed while the employee denied engaging in any sexual intercourse with the learner.
[30] Having heard evidence and arguments by both parties, it is my finding that it is probably that Mr Letsie and the learner A did have sexual intercourse. This conclusion is not far-fetched if one has regard to the conduct of learner A and Mr Letsie. Learner A, during her testimony, did not hide the fact that she was the one who initiated the relationship by first sending Facebook messages to Mr Letsie. She did not hide the fact that she was the one who asked to meet up with Mr Letsie at the park nearer her home. If the incident did not occur, and learner A was not telling the truth, her version of events leading to their meeting up at the park would have been more practiced. For an example, she could have tried to hide the fact that she was the one who initiated the conversation and asked to meet with Mr Letsie at the park.
[31] Also, learner A was at pains trying to explain that she did not want to have Mr Letsie arrested. She did not accompany Koketso to the hospital when he went to see the doctor who refused to examine learner A without a case number. Learner A did not want to give a statement at the police station when Khotso and others went to open a case and expressly told them that she did not want to open a case against the employee. She travelled with her mother, who turned out, according to Ms. Bob, the social worker, to be her aunt since learner A’s biological mother was no more when they went to Welkom police station in Mr Letsie’s car to withdraw the case.
[32] During the arbitration process, learner A maintained that she did not want to have Mr Letsie arrested and that she was at peace with what happened between them and that she just wanted to continue with school and wished to have Mr Letsie reinstated. All this conduct is conduct that I find to be inconsistent with someone who is not telling the truth. Learner A was clear that she decided to tell the truth about her having had sexual intercourse with Mr Letsie because the whole incident was weighing heavily on her and had seriously disrupted her life and schooling. She had not been in school and had been moved to Virginia and thereafter Welkom against her will, and she wanted her life to go back to normal. If she was hell bent on falsely implicating Mr Letsie it is my considered view that she would not have tried, as she hardly did, to refuse opening a case against him and refusing to give a statement at the police station in Bothaville. She also would not have tried, as she did, to withdraw the case against Mr Letsie as such conduct would be inconsistent with someone trying to falsely implicate Mr Letsie. Learner A’s conduct, read in its totality, demonstrated that she was telling the truth about her having had sexual intercourse with Mr Letsie.
[33] I now deal with the question of whether Mr Letsie could be telling the truth or whether his denial that he had sexual intercourse with learner A should be believed. Having heard evidence, I found Mr Letsie’s overall conduct to be completely inconsistent with someone who is telling the truth. Firstly, Mr Letsie’s overall conduct when he received the message requesting his contact number and his conduct on 17 May 2025 raises more questions than answers and point to a strong possibility that learner A was telling the truth.
[34] On receipt of the request from learner A to meet at the park, and I must mention that learner A was only 14 years old at the time, Mr Letsie proceeded to drive to the park where he met with learner A. This conduct itself was highly questionable. Why would an educator meet up with a learner at a park at 19h00 and do so while the very learner’s home is not far from the park? During winter, it becomes fairly dark during 19h00 and I find it highly strange that Mr Letsie would still go to meet alone with a 14-year-old learner alone at the park at that time. It is not unreasonable to conclude that he met with the learner for ulterior motives than him wanting to admonish her about her conduct.
[35] Mr Letsie testified that he was very upset with the learner A and told her that he was going to report her conduct to her mother. As it turned out, Mr Letsie failed to meet up with learner A’s mother after his meeting with learner A. Instead, he stated that he was going to visit learner A’s mother the following Monday to report learner A. The question that then begs an answer is why, if he was as upset as he claimed, he failed to immediately deal with the situation when the opportunity presented itself when learner A’s mother stood out looking for her. Mr Letsie did not explain why, instead of following learner A and passing by the gate of her home, he failed to stop right at the gate and make good on his threat to report learner A’s conduct. The only explanation for his failure to do so is possibly that he willingly engaged in sexual intercourse with the learner and was not upset and had no intention of ever reporting learner A to her mother.
[36] Also, if Mr Letsie was telling the truth, he could have driven directly to learner A’s home or refuse altogether the invitation by the learner to meet at the park. Mr Letsie’ explanation simply did not make sense.
[37] Mr Letsie’s conduct, after a case had been opened at Bothaville police station, became even more questionable when he drove learner A’s mother, learner A and Khotso to Welkom to have learner A withdraw the charges there. He provided no cogent explanation on why he had to be the one driving learner A’s mother and learner A to Welkom. Even if I were to accept that learner A’s mother did not have means to travel to Welkom, I would still find it highly suspicious that Mr Letsie, being the very implicated individual, would be the one driving the victim and her mother to withdraw charges. This could only point to his guilt.
[38] During examination in chief and on a question posed by his representative on why, out of all the educators at the school, learner A decided to point him out as someone she had sexual intercourse with, Mr Letsie offered a very vague and unconvincing response to the effect that he believed learner A falsely accused him because he was her class teacher and that he had refused her advances. Mr Letsie was evasive during the cross examination and, while he made use of an interpreter, he ended up getting nervous and answered some of the questions in English before they could be interpreted. Mr Letsie presented a number of versions during his evidence in chief which he failed to put to learner A. When a question was posed as to why he failed to put the versions to learner A, his response was that he did not do so because he believed he would only raise such when he presented his own case.
[39] An example of the employee’s failure to challenge version by learner A was, for an example, where he stated that it was learner A who had tried to kiss him and that learner A had gotten upset, slammed his car’s door and uttered words to the effect that she (learner A) would show him. This version was never put learner when she was cross examined. I find Mr Letsie to have engaged in the conduct alleged by the employer and is thus guilty of sexual assault on a learner.
[40] Section 17 provides for a mandatory sanction of dismissal where an employee is found guilty of serious misconduct. Mr Letsie is an educator who had more than ten years as an educator. On his own version, he was like a father to learner A and was aware that engaging in a sexual relationship with a learner was not permitted. Mr Letsie did not state that he was unaware that engaging in sexual intercourse with a learner was a serious offence that could result in him being disciplined. His conduct was highly inappropriate and highly unbecoming of a person holding the position of an educator. Even if learner A was the one who expressed interest in him and invited him to the park, Mr Letsie had no business honouring an invitation from a 14-year-old learner to meet him at a park. He should have pointed out to learner A that he could only meet her at her home and in the presence of her mother.
[41] Mr Letsie preyed on the naivety and vulnerability of the learner and failed to abide by the SACE’s Code of Professional Ethics. Learners at schools are there to learn, and educators have a responsibility of protecting learners while under their care, and an educator that fails to uphold this responsibility do not belong in classrooms with learners, let alone having any dealings with children. Mr Letsie’s conduct was very serious to the extent that learner A’s life has never been the same since the sexual assault. She had to stay away from school for an extended period and had to live in Virginia and Welkom since the encounter with Mr Letsie, a situation that could have been avoided by Mr Letsie acting responsible. Abuse of learners is rife at schools. It has in fact become a pandemic to the extent that it persists despite the perpetrators being found guilty, dismissed, struck from the register of educators and put on the children’s register for sexual offenders. But this should not stop the harshest sanction being meted out every time the perpetrators are caught.
[42] In the premises, I make the following award:
AWARD
[43] The employee, Mr Itumeleng Ephraim Letsie, is found guilty of serious misconduct in terms of section 17(1)(b) of the Employment of Educators Act for having sexually assaulted a learner by having sexual intercourse with her.
[44] The sanction of dismissal is imposed effective from 14 November 2025.
[45] The General Secretary of the ELRC must, within 14 days of receipt of this award, report or refer the award to the educators’ professional body, SACE for its consideration of appropriate action to be taken.
[46] The employee, Mr Itumeleng Ephraim Letsie, is found unsuitable to work with children in terms of Section 120(4) of the Children’s Act 38 of 2005.
[47] The General Secretary of the ELRC must, in terms of Section 122(1) of the Children’s Act 38 of 2005, notify the Director General: Department of Social Development in writing of the findings of this forum made in terms of Section 120(4) of the Children’s Act 38 of 2005, that Mr Itumeleng Ephraim Letsie, 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.
[48] The employee has the right to take this award on review to the Labour Court as envisaged in terms of Section 145 of the LRA and must do so within the prescribed timeframe.
Monde Boyce
Panelist: ELRC