21 September 2026 – ELRC583-25/26GP

IN THE EDUCATION LABOUR RELATIONS COUNCIL HELD IN SEDIBENG WEST DISTRIC

Case No: ELRC583-25/26GP

In the matter between

Department of Education – Gauteng Province – Employer

And

Gwinyai Makaure – Employee

Section 188A IBA AWARD

PANELIST: John Siavhe

DETAILS OF THE HEARING AND REPRESENTATION

1.1 This award follows an IBA in terms of section 188A of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995, as amended, in the matter between the Department of Education – Gauteng Province (“the Employer”) and Mr. Gwinyai Makaure as represented by SADTU (“the Employee”).

1.2 Mr. Mudau, Ntuweleni appeared on behalf of the Employer whereas Mr Leeto Sekobolo, SADTU official represented the Employee.

1.3 The proceedings were digitally recorded.

ISSUE TO BE DECIDED

2.1 I am called upon to determine whether or not the Employee is guilty of the allegations against him, and should I find him guilty, determine the appropriate sanction.

2.2 The Employer prayed for summary dismissal should I find him guilty, whereas the Employee prayed that if the Employee is found guilty progressive disciplinary action be applied.

PRELIMINARY MATTERS

3.1 There are no recorded preliminary matters that require determination.

BACKGROUND TO THE DISPUTE

4.1 Pokelano Secondary School is a Public School in Gauteng Province Sedibeng West District.
4.2 The Applicant is a 62 years’ old educator at Pokelano Secondary School.

4.3 The Employee was charged with contravention of section 18(1)(q) of the Employment of Educators Act 78 of 1998, in that around March 2025 he sexually harassed a grade 9 female learner by touching her hand in an inappropriate manner and further told her he wanted her and wants to date her.

4.6 The Applicant understood the charge, and pleaded not guilty.

4.7 The proceedings commenced as scheduled on 26 September 2025. The Employer called its first witness, who will be referred to as the Complainant in accordance with the protection of her identity as a minor. She testified that on the day in question Mr. Makaure was at work and she as a learner was at school. He was her Technology teacher in Grade 9. When learners were busy with their projects during his period, he called her outside, and requested her friend to bring out a chair for him. He then suggested that she come sit with him on the same chair with him and that she should take a selfie with him. She however refused.

4.8 Mr. Makaure requested her to come to his office. She later on went with her friend, MD. The Complainant went in alone and MD waited outside for her. The Complainant then told her, Mr. Makaure held and touched her hand, telling her he wants her, and that he wanted to date her. She was shocked by what the educator Makaure was telling her, as Mr. Makaure was like a grandfather to her. She first reported the incident to her class teacher, Mrs. Mokoena.

4.9 In our next session, Mr. Makaure refused to cross-examine the Complainant, I however advised him that if he does not challenge the Complainant’s testimony I would accept it as she testified. He agreed. He requested to talk to me off the record, saying he is ashamed of what transpired. He then requested to be given time to talk to his family.

4.10 Mr. Makaure tendered his resignation with immediate effect to the Employer on the 9th of July 2026.
4.11 The Employer representative argued on the 16th of July 2026 that the Employer would not call any more witnesses, instead prayed that I should invoke section 14 (1)(d) of Employment of Educators Act 78 of 1998, as amended, and that Mr. Gwinyai Makaure should be deemed dismissed for the alleged misconduct.

4.12 Leeto Sekobolo, SADTU official too agreed with the Employer’s submissions that the matter be closed as per section 14(1) of EEA 78 of 1998, as amended.

4.13 The Employer changed its prayers, continued with the IBA and called two more witnesses, MD and Mrs. Motshidisi Patricia Mokoena an educator, on the 20th of August 2026, to corroborate the Complainant’s testimony to demonstrate the seriousness of the misconduct.

4.14 MDs’ testimony is that they are friends with the Complainant and were together in Grade 9 last year, 2025. They were busy with their Technology Projects when Mr. Makaure went outside and called the Complainant to sit with him on a chair and take a selfie with him. The Complainant declined, Mr. Makaure instructed her to come to his office. She accompanied the Complainant. She waited outside when the Complainant entered into the office alone. The Complainant told her all what happened in the office, that he took her hand and told her that she is the chosen one. The following week on Monday they went to report what happened to their Class Teacher, Mrs. Mokoena.

4.15 Mrs. Motshidisi Patricia Mokoena testified in corroboration of the learner’s evidence, that Mr. Makaure was making advances to date the Complainant a Grade 9 learner in her class. She further testified that the learners reported the incident to her as their class teacher. She escalated it with the office of the Deputy Principal.

ANALYSIS OF ARGUMENT.

5.1 It is common cause that the Department of Education as the Employer has policies, regulations or standards that regulate the conduct of Educators as Employees. The policies are valid and reasonable, and the Employee, Mr. Gwinyai Makaure is aware of same or could reasonably be expected to be aware. He initially disputed to have committed the offence as charged.

5.2 In discharging its onus the Employer called three witnesses, the Complainant, MD and the two learners’ class teacher, Mrs. Motshidisi Patracia Mokoena. Both witnesses testified to the effect that, Mr. Gwinyai Makaure breached Section 18(1) (q) of Employment of Educators Act 7876 of 1998, as amended; in that he sexually harassed a Grade 9 learner, by inappropriately calling her to his office, and told her when touching her hand that she is the chosen one.

5.3 Mr. Makaure opted not to challenge the Complainants’ testimony that was corroborated by the other two witnesses of the Employer despite my advice that if he chooses not to contest the Complainant’s version I would accept it to be correct as she testified. That was before he tendered his resignation on the 9th of August 2026.

5.4 The three witnesses showed to be coherent and reliable. They did not contradict one another. In his concluding remarks, the Employer representative argued that the Employee, Mr. Gwinyai Makaure must be found guilty as charged despite the fact that he decided to run away to avoid the severe sanction he would motivate for the serious misconduct he committed. The Employer does not tolerate educator caliber who prey on school kids.
5.5 It is therefore my finding that the Employer successfully discharged its onus, on a balance of probabilities, to prove that the Employee, Mr. Gwinyai Makaure was in breach of section 18(1) (q) of Employment of Educators Act 76 of 1998, as amended.

5.6 Mr. Makaure was not in attendance to mitigate the sanction to be imposed. In aggravation of the sanction the Employer Representative, Mr. Mudau Ntuweleni argued that the severity of the misconduct should determine the entry point at the sanction . Mr. Makaures’ misconduct warrants dismissal with immediate fact even if it could be his first offence and the personal circumstances for example that two of his children were attending at the same school where he is based and were in the same class with the harassed Complainant.

5.7 Mr. Gwinyai Makaure is found unsuitable to work with children in terms of section 120 (4) of the Children’s Act . The General Secretary of the ELRC is, in terms of section 122(1) of the Children’s Act hereby directed to notify the Director General : Department of Social Development of the findings of this forum so that the Director General can, in terms of section 122(2) of thr Children’s Act enter his name as contemplated in section 120 in terms of the register.

5.8 In totality of all the circumstances I find it appropriate to award as follows: