26 June 2026 – ELRC1408-25-26 GP

IN THE ELRC ARBITRATION
BETWEEN: ELRC1408-25-26 GP

SADTU obo SELINAH MOLOI Applicant
and

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION – GAUTENG Respondent

ARBITRATION AWARD

Case Number: ELRC1408-25-26GP

Date of award: 26 JUNE 2026
Gcina Mafani
ELRC Arbitrator

Education Labour Relations Council
ELRC Building
261 West Avenue
Centurion
Tel: 012 663 0452
Fax: 012 643 1601
E-mail: gen.sec@elrc.co.za
Website: www.elrc.org.za

DETAILS OF HEARING AND REPRESENTATION

1.1. The arbitration hearing was scheduled on 04 of May 2026, 25 and 26 May 2026 and proceeded as such. Both parties were present, the applicant was represented by Pexie Jafta, a SADTU Official and the Respondent was represented by Mluleki Mafuya, the Employee of the Respondent.
1.2. The initial arbitration was held virtually however the parties agreed to a face-to-face hearing to mitigate against postponements due to network.

BACKGROUND
2.1. The Applicant was employed by the Respondent (The Gauteng Department of Education) as a Principal of Montshiwa Primary School under Johannesburg Central District Office.
2.2. She was charged with misconduct in terms of Section 18 (1)(a) and (b) of the EEA 76 of 1998 as amended.
2.3. Allegation 1. It was alleged that during the period 01 January 2023 to 30 June 2024, whilst Montshiwa Primary School ban card was in your possession, un-approved cash withdrawals amounting to R422,936. 07 from the school bank account were made and there is no supporting documentation.
2.4. Allegation 2. It was alleged that during the period 01 January 2023 to 30 June 2024, whilst Montshiwa Primary School bank card was in your possession, un-approved cash withdrawals for an amount totaling to R512,240.00 were made which exceeded the stipulated R36 000,00 petty cash withdrawal in a year.
2.5. The Applicant was found guilty and dismissed from her employment with the Department.
2.6. Dissatisfied with her dismissal, the Applicant referred a dispute to the ELRC for unfair dismissal.
2.7. The arbitration is in respect of a referral by the Applicant of an alleged unfair dismissal for misconduct as provided for in section 191(5)(a)(i) of the Labor Relations Act 66 of 1995 (LRA.)
2.8. I am now required to decide whether the dismissal of the applicant was unfair substantively and procedurally and then to make an order accordingly.
RESPONDENT’S EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS

3.1. The Respondent called its first witness Ms Fortune Choeni ,the Chattered Accountant and the Director at Nepagetse Chattered Accountants.
3.2. The witness testified that she was mandated by the Department of Education to conduct an investigation into the alleged mismanagement of funds at Montshiwa Primary School following a whistleblowing report to the GDE.
3.3. She stated that they interviewed all the individuals concerned and afforded them an opportunity to present their side of the story. She testified that during the investigation they discovered that an amount of R422 936.07 could not be accounted for through the supporting documents. She further explained that the supporting documents were requisition forms, invoices from the suppliers, authorisation through minutes of the SGB meeting approving expenditure. The Applicant was able to supply them with supporting documents for use of an amount of R89 303.93, There were no supporting documents for the amount of R422 936.07. This meant that the Applicant could not prove whether the amount was used for the school purpose or not.
3.4. She testified that the spreadsheet on pages 01 to 08 of the Respondent’s bundle was prepared by herself and it emanated from the school’s bank statements as attached in the aforementioned bundle.
3.5. She continued to give testimony relating to the second allegation and testified that the Applicant withdrew more than the limited amount of petty cash. That according to circular 2 of 2021 clause 6 6.3 the limit is R3 000.
3.6. During their investigation they consulted the Applicant as the custodian of the processes to establish the circumstances leading to the transgression. They consulted all the people who had signed the documents and identified the people who would have performed certain tasks related to the allegations, this was done with a sole purpose to understand the circumstances which lead to the approvals.
3.7. They made all attempts to get documents that they had not received.
3.8. The Applicant was given the spreadsheet to show her the documents had been received and what documents were outstanding.
3.9. The Applicant stated that she had given them all the documents she had.
3.10. In relation to the excess withdrawals, she indicated that she was not aware of the Circular.
3.11. She further explained that there were service providers who did not have bank accounts who preferred cash payments.
3.12. She testified that she consulted with the Chairperson of the School Governing Body (Ms. Anna Mokaba) as well as the Treasurer (Ms. Muhluku) and both indicated that they were not aware of the cash withdrawals from the school account. The only amount that they were aware of was the withdrawal of R2 500.00 which they had authorized.
3.13. The Applicant stated in her consultation that the cash withdrawn was for the benefit of the school. The witness submitted that they could not confirm this accession because there were no supporting documents.
3.14. The witness referred to Circular 2/2021 on page B9 and submitted that the Circular does not allow any deviation from policy.
3.15. The witness was questioned under cross examination regarding the Applicant’s statement and she responded by saying the Applicant was given the statement to read and to make the necessary corrections then sign when she was satisfied. She stated that the Applicant signed the statement which signified that she was in agreement with the contents. She explained that the signature moved to a different page when the format was changed.
3.16. The Applicant’s Representative submitted that the Applicant made the supporting documents available to the investigators.
3.17. The witness spoke to page A63 and stated that when one looks at the document, it would be impossible to identify it as a requisition form without being told that. She stated that it is an acknowledgement of receipt of payment for an amount of R1000.00.

SECOND WITNESS
KGOMOTSO TSHIOVHE The Deputy Director: Labour Relations
4.1. She testified that her responsibilities included facilitating the process of registration for precautionary transfers and suspensions relating to any cases of misconduct of a serious nature, e.g., financial misconduct, sexual misconduct etc.
4.2. She assesses the submission of forensic approval by the HOD, then draft the charges.
4.3. She stated that she does not know the Applicant, she was meeting her for the first time.
4.4. She testified that the Circulars are communicated through the GDE News where all the staff (the HOD, DDG, District Director, Principals) receive the communication. She referred to page 009 and stated that that it is an email from GDE News dated 1 April 2021. That Circular was communicating the discontinuation of cheques. She testified that the Applicant cannot claim that she did not know about the Circular, as the Principals receive the circulars, it is up to them to read the communication and familiarise themselves with it.
4.5. She testified that the Applicant was in contravention of the circular as charged. The Applicant withdrew much more than the stipulated R3 000. She ought to have known the rule, as she is not a junior employee.
4.6. She testified that if she was not sure what to do, she should have enquired from the Finance Manager at the District Office.
4.7. The witness submitted that the offence committed by the Applicant is of a serious nature, it did not warrant corrective measures as submitted by the Representative of the Applicant.
4.8. The Applicant’s representative submitted that she ought to have been inducted and trained in the position, to which she responded by saying that she attended training after the circular was issued, so the Principal would have attended the same training on the circular.
4.9. She submitted that the circular does not require specialized training to understand. If she did not understand she should have enquired from the District.
APPLICANTS CASE
Ms SELINAH MOLOI The Former Principal of Montshiwa Primary School

5.1. She testified under oath and stated that she was appointed as the Principal on 01 November 2020.
5.2. She conceded that the school debit card was in her possession. She testified that she was able to find other invoices to support the payments made and withdrawals.
5.3. She testified that before any use of school funds, the School Governing Body will sit and discuss the need and they come to an agreement for the use of the funds.
5.4. She conceded that during the investigation they were only able to submit supporting documents for an amount of R96 000 but was able to get the rest of the supporting documents after the investigation.
5.5. She testified that the investigator never said anything about the R422 936,07 to her. She only saw the amount of the outstanding invoices at the pre-hearing. She then went out to get the rest of the invoices because she had been given the spreadsheet of all outstanding invoices.
5.6. She testified that she was not aware of the circular or the rule, and if she knew, she would not have committed the misconduct.
5.7. She testified that she was appointed during COVID-19 time, so there was no induction and therefore she could not have known about the Circular.
5.8. She stated that when a Circular is sent out the Department is supposed to have an induction. It is the Department’s responsibility to ensure that they are aware of the circular as Principals. The only time she became aware of the Circular was during the investigation.
5.9. She testified that after her appointment, she attempted to get assistance from the Department but couldn’t because of COVID.
5.10. She testified that she was only three (3) years in the Principal’s Post when she committed these errors, she submitted that she was new in the position.
5.11. She conceded that she usually withdrew more than the required amount because the balance was allocated for the use at the school.
5.12. She testified that she was not aware that she could do an EFT or that an EFT was the official method of payment that was approved. She stated that some of her service providers did not have bank accounts and they requested to be paid in cash, thus the withdrawals.
5.13. She testified that the SGB was never trained in Finance Management as well. She testified that B63 of B1 is the acknowledgement of receipt by Anna Madonsela who is the former chairperson of the SGB. She submitted that the SGB knew about the withdrawals, however she has no way of knowing what they said during the investigation. She reiterated that they sat and agreed on the use of funds as the SGB.
5.14. She submitted that it is not true that the SGB did not know about the withdrawals and referred to Page 114 of B1 where the requisition form was signed by Mathunjwa the Finance Officer and Bohloko the Treasurer.
5.15. She was referred to page 3 of ‘R” read with page 114 of B1 where an amount of R800 was requested on the 25th of January 2024. R1 300 was actually withdrawn. She testified that R800 was used in payment of Sparks Generator and the outstanding amount of R500 was set aside for future purposes of the school.
5.16. She testified that the Investigator’s report was communicated to her via email. She was asked to go through the report and make corrections if satisfied with the report, to sign and send it back to the Investigator. She stated that there were instances where she reported that she was not in agreement with the report, for instance she reported that she disputed that she withdrew the money on weekends, she disputed that she refused to hand over the bank statements to the SGB. She sent an email to the investigator to raise her objections.
5.17. She only saw the final report at the hearing when she received the employer’s bundle.
5.18. She confirmed that she signed the report, however her signature was at the bottom not in a separate page as it is now.
5.19. She reiterated that all the withdrawals were used for school purposes.
5.20. Under cross-examination she stated that the procurement process states that they meet with the SGB to get the use of the funds approved, complete a requisition and have it signed by the Chairperson of the SGB, the Treasurer and the Principal.
5.21. She was asked about the minutes of the meeting which approves the use of funds by the SGB, she had none.
5.22. She was asked about the invoices for instances where they had a service provider, provide a service, she had none. She stated that some of the service providers were paid in cash because they did not have the bank account. She reiterated that she did not know that she was not supposed to pay them in cash because she was never inducted.
5.23. She was referred to page B85 and stated that the withdrawal of R2500 was made on the 2nd of November 2023 to pay for laptop repairs and it has an invoice. She was asked how it happened that the date of the same invoice is different, the one that the Respondent has in his file is date 19 August 2023 and the one in the Applicant’s file is dated 2 November 2023. The Respondent submitted that the Applicant has a different file that she keeps referring to and objected to the Applicant using that file going forward.
5.24. The Applicant stated that she has minutes of the SGB meeting authorising that payment and the minutes were submitted to the Investigator with the rest of the documents. This version was denied by the Respondent stating that this was not placed before the Investigator.
5.25. The witness was asked about the second withdrawal made on 02 November 2023 of R4 000.00. She stated that the withdrawal was made for the farewell awards, however she was unable to demonstrate that the funds were used for the farewell awards because there were no supporting documents.
5.26. A further withdrawal of R4 000.00 on the 24th of November 2023 was made. The witness stated that it was used for the Grade 7 farewell. A further withdrawal of R2 951.21 on 12 December 2023, said to be made for the Grade 7 farewell, she stated that the farewell happened on two separate days.
5.27. The Respondent submitted that all these withdrawals were not approved, and they had no supporting documents and that the Applicant was therefore in contravention of Section 18 (1) (b) of the EEA. The Applicant submitted that she was never inducted and did not know the rules, the SGB was also not trained in financial management.
5.28. The Applicant was asked under cross-examination how much was the monthly petty cash for the school, she stated that it was R3 000.00 but at the time of the alleged misconduct, it was R2 500.00, this was denied by the Respondent and submitted that it is R3 000.00
5.29. The Applicant conceded that she exceeded the petty cash limit but added that it was used for school purposes.
5.30. She stated that she pleaded for leniency because she is the first-time offender, she has always had a clean audit, she continued working until she received her sanction, if she could not be trusted the employer would not have allowed her to continue working.

The 2nd Witness of the Applicant
ANNA MADONSELA (The Chairperson of the SGB)

6.1. She testified under oath and stated that she was appointed by the parents of Montshiwa Primary School in June 2023.
6.2. Se confirmed that she knew Mrs Moloi as the Principal of Montshiwa Primary School.
6.3. She denied that the monies were withdrawn without authorization. she testified that they used to sit as the Finance Committee, discuss and agree on what needed to be done at the school.
6.4. At the AGM, plans and the budget s would be presented to the parents, and all would get voted for.
6.5. She testified that all the monies withdrawn were authorised and were used solely for school purposes.
6.6. She testified that they never received any training from the Department, they were merely inducted by their predecessors that petty cash was R2 500.00.
6.7. She testified that she has very little knowledge about the Circular .
6.8. They co-signed the requisition, herself, and the Finance Officer.
6.9. She testified that A63 she signed the document, they bought from a Spaza Shop, and Spaza Shops don’t issue out slips and that is why there was no slip.
6.10. She testified that the Principal always provided the bank statements whenever they were requested from her.
6.11. She conceded that the minutes of the SGB meetings were part of the supporting documents and stated that the secretary of the SGB kept all the minutes. She was surprized that there were no minutes attached as supporting documents.

ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE

7.1. The Applicant was charged in terms of Section 18 (1) of the EEA with misconduct in that during the period 01 January 2023 to 30 June 2024, whilst Montshiwa Primary School bank card was in her possession, un-approved cash withdrawals amounting to R422,936. 07 from the school bank account were made and there is no supporting documentation.
7.2. Allegation 2: that during the period 01 January 2023 to 30 June 2024, whilst Montshiwa Primary School bank card was in her possession, un-approved cash withdrawals for an amount totalling to R512,240.00 were made which exceeded the stipulated R36 000,00 petty cash withdrawal in a year.
7.3. According to Item 7 of the Code and the ELRC guidelines on Misconduct Arbitration, the first consideration regarding the substantive fairness of a dismissal requires a factual determination as to whether or not the employee actually contravened a rule or standard regulating conduct in the workplace. In Sdumo and another v Rusternburg Platinum Mines Ltd & Others [2007] 28 ILJ 2405 (CC), [2—7] 12 BLLR 1-97 (CC)the Court held that in arriving at a decision, the Commissioner is not required to defer to the decision of the employer but that it should consider all the relevant factors and circumstances. Amongst the factors relevant to the determination of fairness are:

• The importance of the rule that was breached
• The reasons for establishing the rule including its reasonableness
• The harm caused by the employees conduct
• The impact that it had on the trust relationship.
• The effect of setting a precedent
• The reasons why the employer imposed the sanction of dismissal
• The basis of the employee’s challenge to the dismissal

7.4. The Respondent testified through The Chartered Accountant Ms. Fortune Choeni of Nepagetse Chartered Accountants and Kgomotso Tshiovhe.
7.5. Ms. Choeni, the Investigator appointed by the Respondent to investigate allegations relating to the mismanagement of school funds, provided a detailed testimony regarding the investigation she conducted. Her evidence was that, during the investigation, Mrs Moloi conceded that she did not possess the requisite supporting documentation relating to numerous cash withdrawals and expenditures incurred by the school.
7.6. The supporting documents that were absent included the requisition forms, the invoices, the receipts, and the minutes of the School Governing Body meetings reflecting the approval for the expenditure. Mrs Moloi explained that certain service providers preferred payment in cash as they did not have bank accounts.
7.7. She subsequently stated that she had retrieved some of the missing documentation after the investigation had been finalised, she however failed to present such documentation during the proceedings. Consequently, there remains no documentary evidence before this forum to substantiate the majority of the expenditures in question.
7.8. It was apparent from the evidence that Mrs Moloi was unable to support the utilization of school funds through proper financial records and documentation, save for her assertion that the funds were used for the benefit of the school.
7.9. The Investigator testified that the unapproved cash withdrawals made between January 2023 and June 2024 amounted to R422 936.07.
7.10. The Applicant maintained that the cash withdrawals had been approved by the SGB, however, she failed to produce any minutes of meetings, resolutions, invoices, receipts, quotations, or any other documentation to support this assertion.
7.11. A significant aspect of the evidence is that the Applicant demonstrated a clear understanding of the financial management procedures applicable to school funds. During her testimony she explained that before the school funds may be utilized:
• A meeting of the SGB must be convened
• The discussion and decisions must be recorded in minutes
• Approval or agreement must be obtained from the SGB members.
• Quotations must be sourced where necessary
• Invoices and receipts must be retained and filed for record purposes.

7.12. This evidence demonstrates that the Applicant was fully aware of the procedures governing the management and expenditure of school funds.
7.13. The Applicant’s evidence was corroborated by Ms. Madonsela who served as the Chairperson of the SGB during the relevant period. Although both the Applicant and Ms. Madonsela asserted that they lacked financial training, they were nevertheless able to describe the applicable procedures in detail. Their evidence therefore confirms that they understood the basic requirements for accountability and record keeping.
7.14. The documentary evidence, particularly the school bank statements established that an amount of R422 936.07 was withdrawn from the account during the relevant period. These withdrawals were not disputed by the Applicant.
7.15. The Applicant’s explanation was that the funds were withdrawn to pay service providers who performed maintenance and other services for the school and that some service providers preferred payment in cash.
7.16. There is no documentary evidence before this forum to substantiate that those funds were in fact utilized for legitimate school purposes. No invoices, receipts, quotations, contracts, requisitions payment vouchers, or SGB resolutions were produced to verify the expenditure.
7.17. The documentary evidence produced raises further concerns. For example, reference was made to a Gallito’s receipt reflecting an amount of R260.00, whereas elsewhere an invoice of R2 500.00 was relied upon in relation to computer repairs. Such discrepancies further undermine the reliability of the Applicant’s explanation.
7.18. The Applicant also stated that some of the funds were utilized for farewell functions, picnics, maintenance work, and other school activities, however, these assertions remain unsupported by any contemporaneous documentation. The allegations against the Applicant are substantially supported by the bank statements, the contents of which were never challenged or disputed.
7.19. The evidence of Ms. Madonsela corroborated material aspects of the Respondent’s case. Although she served as a Chairperson of the SGB during the relevant period, she conceded during cross examination that the withdrawals were unacceptable and acknowledged concern regarding the absence of supporting documentation for the expenditure.
7.20. Her evidence did not support the contention that all withdrawals had been properly approved and documented. On the contrary, she appeared surprised by the extent of the missing documentation and the lack of accountability regarding the expenditure.
7.21. The Applicant further failed to call the Treasurer, who was a key role player in authorising and processing many transactions.
7.22. The Treasurer would have been in a position to provide material evidence regarding authorization of the withdrawals, the approval process followed, the existence of supporting documents and the actual utilisation of the funds.
7.23. In National Union of Mineworkers vs CCMA 2011 (11) BLLR 1177 (LC), the Court held that an employee entrusted with funds has a duty to account for them, and failure to do so constitutes a misconduct.

7.24. Having considered the totality of the evidence, I find that the Respondent has discharged the onus of proving the allegation on a balance of probabilities.

8.1. Allegation 2: that during the period 01 January 2023 to 30 June 2024, whilst Montshiwa Primary School bank card was in her possession, un-approved cash withdrawals for an amount totalling to R512,240.00 were made which exceeded the stipulated R36 000,00 petty cash withdrawal in a year.
8.2. The Applicant conceded during her testimony that the cash withdrawals exceeded the prescribed annual petty cash limit of R36 000.00. This admission is corroborated by the withdrawal records and bank statements placed before this tribunal. The documentation clearly demonstrated that the withdrawals exceeded the permissible threshold by a substantial margin.
8.3. The Applicant’s defence was that she was unaware of the provisions of the Circular 02/2021 and that she had not received formal induction or training regarding the management of school finances. She further contended that this lack of training contributed to her failure to comply with the applicable financial prescripts.
8.4. This defence cannot be sustained.
8.5. The Applicant occupied the position of a Principal, a senior leadership position carrying significant responsibilities in relation to the governance, administration, and financial management of the school. By virtue of her office, she was required to exercise due diligence in ensuring compliance with all applicable legislation, departmental policies, Circulars, and financial prescripts regulating the management of public funds.
8.6. Ignorance of applicable policies does not absolve an employee, particularly one occupying a senior management position, from accountability for non-compliance. The duty to acquaint oneself with the policies and procedures governing one’s area of responsibility is inherent in the position of aPrincipal.
8.7. The Applicant asserted that she sought assistance from the district official regarding financial management, however no evidence was produced to substantiate this assertion. The absence of such evidence renders her assertion unsubstantiated.
8.8. Furthermore, the evidence presented under allegation 1 established that the Applicant possessed a clear understanding of the financial processes that ought to be followed before the school funds could be expended. That is demonstration that she was not entirely unfamiliar with financial governance requirements and undermines her contention that noncompliance resulted solely from lack of training.
8.9. In Minister of Finance vs Gore, NO 2007 (1) SA 111 SCA, the Court emphasised that senior officials are expected to comply with governance frameworks and cannot escape liability by claiming ignorance.

8.10. Having considered all the evidence, I make the following findings:

The Applicant made cash withdrawals totalling R512 240.00 between January 2023 and June 2024.
The Applicant conceded that the withdrawals exceeded the prescribed annual petty cash withdrawal limit of R36 000.00
The Applicant’s defence that she was unaware of the Circular and lacked financial management training is not persuasive and does not constitute a valid justification for the breach.
As the Principal, the Applicant occupied a position of authority and responsibility and was reasonably expected to familiarize herself with all policies and prescript governing management of school finances.
There was no evidence to substantiate the Applicant’s assertion that she sought assistance for training from district officials including Mr Kalane.
The excessive cash withdrawals constituted a clear breach of the applicable financial prescripts and undermined the principles of accountability and sound financial management envisaged by South African Schools Act.
FINDING

I accordingly find that the Respondent has proven Allegations 1 and 2 on a balance of probabilities and the Applicant committed misconduct by effecting cash withdrawals substantially exceeding the prescribed petty cash limit applicable to the public schools.
I accordingly make the following award:
AWARD

10.1. I find the dismissal of the Applicant SELINAH MOLOI by the Respondent The Department of Education Gauteng fair.
10.2. This application is dismissed.