IN THE EDUCATION LABOUR RELATIONS COUNCIL
In the INQUIRY BY ARBITRATOR between

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCTION – GAUTENG PROVINCE “the Employer”

AND

MASEKO, T “the Employee”

SECTION 188A IBA RULING

CASE NUMBER: ELRC249-25/26GP
LAST DATE OF INQUIRY: 16 October 2025
LAST CLOSING ARGUMENTS RECEIVED ON: 28 October 2025
DATE AWARD SUBMITTED: 20 November 2025
NAME OF COMMISSIONER: Leanne Joy Alexander

Details of hearing and representation

1. This process was set down in terms of section 188A of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 as amended (hereafter “the LRA”), and ELRC Collective Agreement 3 of 2018. The matter was heard on several days as follows: 25 July 2025, 28 August 2025 and 16 October 2025, at the Employer’s premises at Gauteng Department of Education Head Office at Corner Simmonds Street and Main Street, Johannesburg. The last of the closing arguments were received from the parties on 28 October 2025.
2. The Employer is the Gauteng Department of Education, represented by Mr Ngobeni, E. The accused Employee is Mr Maseko, T (“Maseko”), represented by Mr Mathopa, S, an official of SADTU.
3. Mr Myeza, M, acted as interpreter, and the intermediary was Ms Shibisi, E.
4. The Employer submitted the notice of a disciplinary hearing containing the charge, marked for record purposes included in “bundle R”. The Employee submitted “bundle A” into evidence.

Issue to be decided

5. I am required to determine whether Maseko is guilty of the charge levelled against him. Should I find him guilty of the charge, then I need to determine the appropriate sanction, as well as make a determination in terms of section 120(1)(c) of the Children’s Act 38 of 2005 whether Maseko is unsuitable to work with children.

Background and charges

6. Maseko, an educator employed at Anchor Comprehensive High School (“the School”), is charged with one allegation of misconduct in terms of item 5 of the Disciplinary Code and Procedure for Educators. He was employed since February 2025, to date.
7. Allegation1:

“It is alleged that on/or around March 2025, you had sexual relationship with a Grade 12 (D) learner from Anchor Comprehensive School where you are currently teaching”.

In view of the above you are thus charged with misconduct in terms of Section 17(1)(c) of the Employment of Educators Act 76 of 1998 as amended.
Plea

8. Maseko pleaded not guilty to charge 1 and denied all the allegations levelled against him.

Summary of evidence

9. The proceedings have been recorded digitally, and a summary of the Employer’s and Employee’s witnesses’ evidence follows below. What follows is only a summary of evidence deduced at the inquiry and does not purport to be a verbatim transcription of all the testimony given. The digital record of the proceedings will reflect the complete testimony of the said witnesses.
10. The matter relates to, inter alia, allegations of sexual relations with a learner. In accordance with the protection of the rights of minors afforded them in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, the identity of that learner and other minor witnesses will not be disclosed. I will refer to the minor witnesses as “Learner X, Learner Y and Learner Z”. The minor witnesses testified by making use of the assistance of an interpreter and an intermediary through Microsoft Teams via a virtual process.
11. I must furthermore indicate at the outset at the proceedings I indicated that the district office was not conducive, nor had the appropriate facilities for learners to testify. I issued an ex-tempora ruling that the other witnesses would testify on 25 July 2025, and the learners would be on a different date at a conducive venue.

Employer’s case

12. Kgethego Mpamonyane, MS (“Mpamonyane”) testified under oath that she was the Head of Department (“HOD”) for history, geography, social studies and English.
13. Mpamonyane initially raised her concerns that the report that she had written she was unaware that it would have been leaked and would leave the room wherein it was discussed. She furthermore indicated that she did not feel comfortable to be present in the proceedings and she felt like she was being “ambushed”.
14. Mpamonyane testified that she would not respond to allegation 1 (one). She disputed that she typed the letter (page 8 – Employer’s bundle); when she typed her letters she inserted the date at the top, as an english educator, she knew how to insert the date. She would not comment regarding the letter.
15. With regards to the SMT meeting minutes, she conceded that she wrote them during the meeting as the secretary. She was promised by ODSO, if she knew something and it was reported, her pension fund would be affected. Meaning if the alleged perpetrator went down, she went down with him. She was not informed that it would lead to the current situation, and it would have left that room, if that were the case, she would not have mentioned the names.
16. She was only forced to say who else knew of the alleged allegations. When the content of the letter was drafted, she sat with the acting Principal Ms Mokoena, P and IDSO, Mr Motaung.
17. She would not comment with regards to where the information came from, however, during the SMT meeting, all the information that was shared was confidential, therefore, everything shared could not leave the room.
18. During cross-examination Mpamonyane repeated that she would not comment on the allegation. The allegation was reported to the district, via the Acting Principal, Ms Mokoena, P. In her view, the Principal did not report the matter, as perhaps she wanted to distance herself from the matter.
19. During cross-examination Mpamonyane indicated that she was shocked that the SMT meeting minutes, were submitted in the arbitration proceedings.
20. Malope Shikonele (“Shikonele”) testified under oath that she was the parent of the implicated learner.
21. Shikonele testified that she had written the statement on (page 14 – Employer’s bundle) and she agreed and stood by what she had written.
22. During cross-examination Shikonele explained she wrote down what had happened. She did not have proof of the sexual interaction, and she would not talk too much about it, however, what her daughter told her she wrote down in her statement.
23. During cross-examination Shikonele explained that at home, she would not know much as to what would push her daughter to the extent of drinking pills. However, her daughter was closer to her grandmother than she was with her. At times she responded harshly towards her daughter.
24. During re-examination, Shikonele explained that her daughter was scared that the relationship was now in the open and it would put Maseko into trouble.
25. During re-examination, Shikonele explained that she would say that the relationship ended, so it would not be known in public.
26. Learner X, a female learner, testified under oath through Teams with the assistance of an intermediary that she is currently in grade 12 in Anchor Comprehensive High School.
27. Maseko taught her geography at school. Her friend was Learner Y.
28. Learner X testified that during break time, Learner Y asked for her phone, as she did not have hers with her. Learner Y wanted to store Maseko’s number on the phone as she was “dating and jolling” with him. Learner Y enquired with her if she had airtime and she responded that she did not, as Learner Y wanted to give Maseko a “buzz”. When there was no response, Learner Y decided to store Maseko’s number on WhatsApp Messenger (“WhatsApp”). Thereafter, each time Learner Y wanted to communicate with Maseko she asked to use her phone. It had nothing to do with her; therefore, she did not check the conversations. However, they were having an affair and dating one another.
29. Learner X testified that she would not know how Learner Y obtained Maseko’s number, she had the number stored mentally as it was not written down.
30. Learner X testified that all communication making use of her cell phone occurred on the school’s premises. At times Maseko would call her and enquired regarding Learner Y whereabouts. Again, she would not delve into the chats, as Learner Y had already achieved Maseko, if he would send a text back it was really none of her business. Therefore, she was not sure how often Learner Y and Maseko would communicate, as it was depended on whether she had Wi-Fi, therefore, she would not know if Maseko would reply.
31. Learner X testified that Learner Y would text Maseko during lunch breaks and she would phone him. What she meant when she indicated “achieved” was that when you hide or conceal the chats, if someone were to sneak into WhatsApp, no one would detect them. She no longer had the WhatsApp’s on her phone.
32. Learner X testified that Maseko called herself, Learner Y and Learner Z, into the office and they were all reprimanded as they were going around telling everyone that Learner Y was having an affair with him. Maseko was harsh and reprimanded Learner Y. Learner Y, Maseko and herself then went to Mam Mpamonyane’s office, when Learner Y informed Mam that she communicated with Maseko using her phone, Maseko denied such. Mam Mpamonyane wanted to see her cell phone; however, the chats were already deleted, and she looked for Maseko’s number, which had also been deleted. Learner Y informed her that she spoke to Maseko, and she had a “crush” on him. After the meeting Learner Y was crying and weeping, she was hurt.
33. Learner X testified that after that, she left Learner Y at the traffic lights after school, as she stayed in the hostel. Approximately 3 (three) hours later, she learnt that Learner Y drank rat poison. She received a message, however, she deleted it and Maseko’s number as she panicked, when she heard what had happened and she wanted nothing to do with it.
34. Learner X testified that Maseko was angry and furious and reported them to Mam Mpamonyane. Mam Mpamonyane, informed them that they must not do such things, and they must delete Maseko’s numbers. In the meeting they were called to order and reprimanded.
35. During cross-examination Learner X explained that she was currently in grade 12 and Maseko was her geography teacher.
36. During cross-examination Learner X explained that she did not know Maseko’s number and in their geography group, they did not have his number.
37. During cross-examination Learner X explained that Learner Y was scared as she had a “crush” on Maseko, as she wanted the girls to feel jealous.
38. During cross-examination Learner X explained that from her own observation this thing was non-existent, Maseko lived next to her street, at no stage did Maseko take Learner Y to Maseko’s house. Learner Y informed her that she had a crush on Maseko and she did not know how to “nail him”.
39. During re-examination, Learner X explained that her phone was used via Learner Y to communicate with Maseko. Mam Mpamonyane instructed her to delete Maseko’s number from her phone, as it was not permissible. By the time Mam Mpamonyane’s looked on her cell phone, the number was already deleted. She deleted it on her own accord.
40. During re-examination, Learner X explained that Learner Y would take her phone to communicate with Maseko, what they said she would not know as she would not get into it.
41. Learner Y, a female learner, testified under oath through Teams with the assistance of an intermediary that she is currently in grade 12 in Anchor Comprehensive High School.
42. Learner Y testified that the last time she spoke with Maseko was when he called her in, as he heard a story that she was in love with him. In the meeting, Maseko queried why she spread stories about having an affair with him around the school’s campus. After that, she proceeded to walk out and left Learner X and Learner Z behind in the office.
43. Learner Y testified that Maseko heard rumours that she had spread that they were having an affair and in love. Mam Mpamonyane then summonsed Maseko and herself. Mam Mpamonyane said to Maseko that she was not saying what was said was true or not, but whatever they were doing must stop. Maseko did not respond. Learner X then came to collect her from the office and Learner X was asked by Mam Mpamonyane how they both communicated with each other. To which Learner X told Mam Mpamonyane that she made use of her phone to communicate with Maseko.
44. Learner Y testified that Mam Mpamonyane said that it was not permissible that an Educator and a learner would exchange numbers and they must delete Maseko’s number, it was only permissible via a WhatsApp group. However, the number was not on Learner X cell phone.
45. Learner Y testified that she was staying in the hostel and at the same time dating Mr Mininhle, whilst dating she did not have a phone. She stored Mr Mininhle’s number in Learner X phone, during the day whilst she was at school she would chat with Mr Mininhle, making use of Learner X phone as Mr Mininhle was an unemployed person “hustling” in town. As they were dating and being “lovey-dovey” she would inform Leaner X that she was chatting with Maseko. Learner X was convinced that she was chatting with Maseko, whereas she was in fact chatting with Mr Mininhle.
46. Learner Y testified that she did not have a relationship with Maseko and she was telling the truth.
47. Learner Y testified that her mother was Ms Malope, as per her mother’s statement (page 14 – Employer’s bundle) she told her mother what she had told others, if she denied it, what would the others have said?
48. Learner Y testified what brought on her attempted suicide, was that her life was being exposed. When Maseko was introduced to them, she had a “crush” on him, it was on all on the girls’ lips. The only way to beat them to the race, was to tell them that Maseko was hers in order to keep them at bay. When her mother came, she told her what she told other people, as she felt humiliated as she wanted it to be in line what she had told others.
49. Learner Y testified that she was never at Maseko’s place in the afternoon, there was no such thing. However, Learner X collected the key from her in the street.
50. Learner Y testified that Maseko resided in the school’s street. Near the creche, on that day she was seated with Ms Khaluheng, and her boyfriend, and they were smoking “hubbly-bubbly” they proceeded to leave as Ms Khaliheng’s boyfriend gave them R20-00 (twenty Rand) to go to the shop. She heard that Maseko stayed in the same street and at that time she would not deny that she had a “crush” on Maseko. She used the same street, and she saw people coming her way and Learner X questioned her as to where she had come from. She told Learner X that she came from Maseko’s. It was not a co-incidence that she saw Learner X on the same street, as she told Learner X that she was in love with Maseko, therefore Learner X had to know that.
51. Learner Y testified that on the day of her suicide attempt, she was with a girl named Ms Nhlanhla. The same day that Maseko confronted them and summonsed them to his office and informed them of the rumour and that it tarnished his name. Learner Z took Maseko’s number from the geography WhatsApp group chats. She did not know how Learner Z communicated with Maseko on the day; she tried to commit suicide, and she was dying and so weak. However, Learner Z informed her that she sent Maseko a voice note.
52. Learner Y testified she told Learner Z that she was in love with Maseko that was the reason she communicated with him directly on the day of her suicide attempt. After the suicide attempt, she was hospitalised, however, she did not recall the date.
53. During cross-examination Learner Y explained in general she did not have a bond with her mother, they did not have an attached relationship, only if something cropped up. Generally, they did not have a bond. She had a good relationship with her grandmother. She would share information with her grandmother; however, she did not share this particular information with her.
54. During cross-examination Learner Y explained that it was not her first suicide attempt, she tried to kill herself during 2021, as she was pregnant. She was embarrassed at an only girl’s school. She was an excellent student and could not stand the humiliation/scandal.
55. During cross-examination Learner Y explained that she met Learner X in the street when she was walking to the shops as she left Slender street. She informed Learner X that she was by her person, her “heart-throb”.
56. During cross-examination Learner Y explained that in her view the allegations levelled against Maseko were non-existent. This was planned and executed by herself, and she took full responsibility.
57. During re-examination, Learner Y explained that there was a WhatsApp group chat for geography, however, she did not have a phone. She knew about the WhatsApp chats as friends would show them what was going on.
58. During re-examination, Learner Y explained that she borrowed Leaner X phone in order to convince her that she was talking to Maseko, whereas she was not.
59. During re-examination, Learner Y explained that she did not hand Learner X any keys in the same street where Maseko’s stayed.
60. Learner Z, a female learner, testified under oath through Teams with the assistance of an intermediary that she is currently in grade 12 in Anchor Comprehensive High School and Maseko was her geography teacher.
61. Learner Z testified that Learner Y was her classmate, and she used to be her friend. Learner X informed her that Learner Y was having an affair with Maseko. When Maseko was introduced to the class, Learner Y informed her that “ha this one is mine” and she thought that she was playing. Learner Y also informed her that “she was with Sir Maseko” and “they want to a soccer match with Sir Maseko”.
62. Learner Z testified that they attended a party, and she said she was leaving, however, Learner Y informed her that “she was going with Sir Maseko” and she left with the key. They then met in the street within close proximity where Maseko was staying and Learner Y informed her that “she left Sir Maseko sitting on the bed”. She took the key and then left and went back to her location.
63. Learner Z testified that there was talk that Learner Y and Maseko were having it on, and it went on like that until Maseko came into the classroom and summonsed Learner X, Learner Y and herself to his office. Learner Y opened up and said that she had a crush on Maseko, and she did not want him to lose his job, she then got angry and left. Maseko informed them that they must call Learner Y to order and stop spreading the dating rumours. Maseko said that he wanted nothing to do with Learner Y, if people saw them, they would think that it was true. After the apology, Learner Y appeared to be calm, however, she then attempted suicide.
64. Learner Z testified that after hearing about Learner Y suicide attempt, she phoned for an ambulance, however, they informed her that 3 (three) people had already called. She borrowed a phone from the neighbour, and Maseko’s number was on that phone, she sent a voice note to Maseko informing him that Learner Y tried to commit suicide. She found out that Maseko was offline. Whether or not Maseko told someone regarding the voice notes, it would really mean that they were having a “fling”.
65. Learner Z testified that Learner Y informed her that the neighbour had Maseko’s number. Maseko received the voice note and he informed Learner Y to keep her distance, as it would look like they were having a “fling”.
66. Learner Z testified that she did not know of the geography WhatsApp groups, as she did not have a phone. She accessed Maseko’s number via the neighbour’s phone; she was not sure which group had the number. However, she got Maseko’s number from the neighbour, as instructed by Learner Y.
67. Learner Z testified that Mam Mpamonyane was her history teacher, Mam Mokoena, was the Principal, Sir O Ndaba, her maths teacher and Sir BB Ralefala, was her science teacher.
68. Learner Z testified that Maseko stayed 2 (two) streets away from the school, they would see him, due to his close proximity to the school. She searched for the keys in that particular location, as she knew where Maseko stayed, but not his precise location. Learner Y informed her that she was going to Maseko’s place, hence she went to where Maseko was staying.
69. Learner Z testified that she came across Learner Y in the street where Maseko stayed, Learner Y informed her “that she left Maseko lying on the bed”. On the day she was with her friend, Ms Mpendulo.
70. Learner Z testified that she made a mistake in her statement that she saw Learner Y seated on the bed, however, she meant to write that Learner Y actually informed her about that.
71. Learner Z testified that the reason behind Learner Y’s suicide attempt, was due to her being called into the office by Maseko, as she was having an affair/dating him.
72. Learner Z testified that she went to her neighbour, Ms Tsho’s, and she informed her that Learner Y made use of her phone for group matters. She scrolled down and she saw Maseko’s number on the WhatsApp domain in the geography section, within the group participants.
73. Learner Z testified that she sent Maseko a WhatsApp and informed him about Learner Y condition, she said “Hi” and that “Learner Y drank poison, and she did not know why she was doing that, she must stop and move on with her life”. Learner Y instructed her to contact Maseko, she wondered why she was not told to contact her mother, or her father.
74. Learner Z testified that Maseko did not respond to her voice note, there was only one tick, however, she heard from Mam Mpamonyane, that Maseko sent her the voice notes.
75. Learner Z testified that the reason why Maseko sent the voice notes to Mam Mpamonyane, as Maseko thought he was being pranked as a seduction measure.
76. Learner Z testified that all along Learner Y was lying to them that she had a relationship with Maseko. Everyone knew that Maseko’s number was on the WhatsApp group, however, Learner Y did not have a phone.
77. Learner Z testified that Learner Y informed her that she was dating and having an affair with Maseko. She furthermore informed her that Maseko took her to his house in Thokoza, so he could introduce her to his family. She also told her that she went to Maseko to watch football and once they slept together.
78. Learner Z testified that the whole situation with Learner Y taking poison hurt her.
79. During cross-examination Learner Z explained that she did not know about the charges levelled against Maseko, however, Learner Y lied a lot saying that she had a relationship with Maseko. The matter was a buzz at school, regarding the rumours, however, all in all Learner Y must have been lying.
80. During cross-examination Learner Z explained that the reason why Learner Y attempted suicide, as she felt ashamed and disgraced by spreading false rumours. Hence, that was the reason why Maseko called them to inform them that the reason he was there was to educate, and not to date learners.
81. During cross-examination Learner Z explained that she shared the same opinion as Learner X and Learner Y, that it was a rumour, and it was not true.
82. During cross-examination Learner Z explained that it was self-evident that it was a rumour, as it came from the horse’s mouth, they could not disbelieve that.
83. During re-examination Learner Z explained that she met Learner Y in the street where Maseko resided.
84. During re-examination Learner Z explained that she made a mistake on her statement, in fact Learner Y informed her that she left Maseko sitting on the bed.
85. During re-examination Learner Z explained that on the day of Learner Y attempted suicide, she only communicated with Maseko.
86. Patricia Poppy Mokoena (“Mokoena”) testified under oath that she was the Deputy Principal (Anchor Comprehensive High School).
87. Maseko was a teacher at Anchor Comprehensive High School and he taught geography.
88. A SMT meeting was held during April 2025, a Head of Department (“HOD”) reported an allegation that a teacher was having a relationship with a grade 12 (D) learner. As the acting Principal, she sent an email to the IDSO. Furthermore, Ms Mpamonyane, informed her of such.
89. She confirmed that Ms Mpamonyane, typed the circuit letter, as she asked her to do so. It was a mistake that it was not signed. The letter was a true reflection of what was said to her.
90. With regards to the SMT meeting minutes, it was where Ms Mpamonyane, told them everything. Ms Ralifale, took the minutes during the meeting. Furthermore, Ms Mpamonyane, informed them that she received a call that the learner was hospitalized, due to her drinking rat poison.
91. If an allegation was made, they had a duty to report it. Ms Mpamonyane, never told them of other teachers that were involved, as indicated in the minutes. Previously, they had an educator who was suspended who also had a sexual relationship with a learner,
92. It was clear that Maseko and Ms Mpamonyane, communicated with each other.
93. Learner Z informed Ms Mpamonyane, that she knew where Maseko resided. Learner Z was informed from Learner Y that she should call Maseko after the attempted suicide.
94. As indicated in the minutes, Maseko informed Ms Mpamonyane, that he would deny that he slept with Learner Y, but he was in a relationship with her.
95. Learner Y’s mother, Ms Shikonele, reported that her daughter, Learner Y, attempted suicide due to her relationship with Maseko, as the affair was known by both the teachers and the learners.
96. The attempted suicide occurred on 14/15 April 2025, and Learner Y was hospitalised on 16 April 2025, and she was admitted on 15 April 2025.
97. On 16 April 2025, Maseko, did not report for duty and he did not provide reasons for his non-attendance. Maseko only responded on 9 June 2025, and she could not recall whether Maseko or Learner Y was at school on 25 April 2025 and 15 May 2025.
98. During cross-examination Mokoena explained that she had a good relationship with Maseko and she always asked him about the performance of the learners.
99. During cross-examination Mokoena explained that the SMT minutes, were a true reflection of what transpired, however, if something was bought up, they had to report it. As the acting Principal, she had to report such matters and she asked Ms Mpamonyane, to write a report so they could inform the district.
100. During cross-examination Mokoena explained that if an Educator was absent, they would send a WhatsApp message. Maseko did not report on 16 April 2025, he also did not report on 25 April 2025 and 5 May 2025.
101. During cross-examination Mokoena explained that Maseko responded that regarding the 16 April 2025, he had no water and on 25 April 2025 and 5 May 2025, he indicated that his mother was hospitalised, however, no evidence was submitted.
102. During cross-examination Mokoena explained that she did not speculate in terms of Maseko not being at school on 16 April 2025, she took the reasons that were provided to her. She sent the forms and information to the district as they enquired regarding Maseko’s attendance. In grade 12, they monitored attendance, and she informed the district that she gave Maseko a verbal warning. Perhaps Maseko visited Learner Y on 16 April 2025, however, she could not assume. When they investigated, they came with different angles.
103. During cross-examination Mokoena explained that she had to give Maseko a verbal warning, as it was the third time that he was absent and it was becoming too much.
104. During cross-examination Mokoena explained that she had to include the SMT meeting minutes, as when the district investigated, they questioned how she obtained the information, hence she shared the minutes.
105. During cross-examination Mokoena explained that she never saw Maseko with Learner Y, however, it was bought to her attention, therefore she had to report it.
106. During cross-examination Mokoena explained that the rumours came from all 3 (three) learners that were in the same class. Maseko was the only new teacher, and she did not have a policy/circular regarding onboarding.
107. During re-examination, Mokoena explained that Ms Mpamonyane, told her that she had a one-on-one with Maseko and she put it in writing that Maseko had a relationship with a learner.
108. During re-examination, Mokoena explained that she was only made aware of the rumour during today’s proceedings.
109. During re-examination, Mokoena explained that when Maseko was employed, she told him that he was a young man, and teachers must not have sexual relations with learners. She cautioned him that he was there to teach, and she took him as her son. Furthermore, she informed him that high school learners do funny things, therefore he must present himself well. She also informed him that an Educator, Mr Malinga, was previously also dismissed.

Employee’s case

110. Thokozane Maseko (“Maseko”), the Employee, testified under oath that he is an educator at Anchor Comprehensive High School. He teaches geography for grade 8 – 12 learners. He joined the school on 6 February 2025. Previously, he taught in the Free State for a period of 3 (three) years.
111. Maseko testified that he was not inducted when he commenced employment, however, the Principal, only guided him with small things. He had a good relationship with the Principal and the subject head.
112. He did not have any sexual relationship with a learner; he stated that it was just an allegation, which he heard in the corridors. When he heard the rumours, he was surprised. He noticed that most teachers knew about it, which affected his attendance. It was tense and he was hesitant to go to class, as he could not face the learners.
113. He disputed the SMT meeting minutes, as it was a lie. He commenced employment on 6 February 2025, and the allegations started late March 2025. Maybe some teachers did it, he was new to learn of such.
114. Ms Mpamonyane, approached him and informed him that she was not happy due to the rumours circulating that he was dating Learner Y. She further said that other teachers were aware, and she was not sure whether it was true or not, however, the learners must be called in so this could stop. She also informed him that he was new and not permanent as yet, and this would sabotage him.
115. He approached the maths literacy teacher, in order to call Learners X, Y & Z. He then took them to his office, he informed them that he would never date a learner, as it would sabotage everything. Learner Y face then changed, and he told her to stop spreading lies and she proceeded to leave. Learner X and Z remained in the office, and he implored them to talk to their friend.
116. On the same day, he received 2 (two) voice notes from Learner Z at around 17:00, however, he only logged into WhatsApp at around 20:00 and he heard the voice notes where Learner Z said “Sir Sir help us….drank poison…”. He did not respond to them; however, he sent them to Ms Mpamonyane. She then phoned him 5 (five) minutes later to question him why a learner would do that.
117. He did not want to entertain anything from the learners; hence he forwarded them to Ms Ms Mpamonyane.
118. When he arrived on 6 February 2025, there was already a WhatsApp group with another teacher, Mr Skosana. He would send activities, assignments and projects on the group. The learners got his number from that group that was the reason they sent him a text privately. Learner Z sent 2 (two) voice notes and the first time it was a text.
119. Since Learner Y lashed out when he confronted her, when he told her that he would not date a learner, it may have triggered her to drink poison. He did not know Learner Y personal issues.
120. He disputed that Learner Y knew where he stayed. The learners had an idea that he was from Thokoza, when he started, they asked where he was from. Most learners knew that he was not from Soweto.
121. The Employer assumed that his absenteeism and the allegations might be true, as he was not at school during that particular time.
122. He was called on 6 May 2025, and questioned with regards to his whereabouts on 16 April 2025, 25 April 2025 and 5 May 2025, and he was subsequently informed that he would be precautionary transferred. He responded via email, and he did not receive a response from the Principal, however, he was not happy, as it meant that the Employer believed the allegations. Learner Z fabricated her story.
123. As to why Learner Z called him, there could be many reasons why. As a teacher, it was the same day that he reprimanded them when Learner Y drank the poison. He was the first person that they could think of.
124. Learner Y lied to her mother that she was having an affair with him. She fabricated her story, and it was her motivating the reasons as to why she drank the poison in the first place.
125. It was a narrative that all 3 (three) learners said that it was a rumour and he heard a comment here and there from the grade 11 learners, however, he did not consider it until Mr Ngobeni came to the school.
126. During cross-examination Maseko explained that the only girl learner who told lies in these proceedings was Learner Y. Everyone told the truth what they heard and not what they saw, however, it was all rumours. Learner Y told the truth orally, however, in her written statement it was not the truth, and she fabricated her story.
127. During cross-examination Maseko explained that Learner Y spread the rumours. He had a normal teacher/learner relationship with Learner Y, she was bright and participated during class.
128. During cross-examination Maseko explained that he did not recall saying to Ms Mpamonyane, what was indicated (page 13 – Employer’s bundle). She only called him to enquire about the learner. In any event, Ms Mpamonyane, disputed that she wrote the statement.
129. During cross-examination Maseko explained that he never said that other teachers were also doing that, he did not know about the other Educators at the school, he only partied with them.
130. During cross-examination Maseko explained that both Learner Y and Ms Mpamonyane, were wrong, and Ms Mpamonyane tried to betray him, as it was his name in the statement. The truth was relative.
131. During cross-examination Maseko explained that the learners may have come near to where he stayed, but he never saw them. They did mention that his place was near the creche.
132. During cross-examination Maseko explained that a WhatsApp group was already in existence when he arrived at the school. He never sent a text to Learner X and Y. He was not aware if Learner Z was in the group or not, but she texted him privately when Learner Y drank the poison. He knew it was her, as she introduced herself.
133. During cross-examination Maseko explained that in the voice note he recognised Learner Z voice as he taught them.
134. During cross-examination Maseko explained that he could not recall the meeting with Ms Mpamonyane, and himself. However, he met her twice; first in the class and the second occasion was after the poison incident. It was just the 2 (two) of them.
135. During cross-examination Maseko explained that (page 8 – Employer’s bundle) was false information. When he introduced himself to the learners, he informed them that his hometown was Thokoza. Both Ms Mpamonyane and Learner Y were lying.
136. During cross-examination Maseko explained that Learner Z was lying on her statement as when she collected the key he was not there.
137. During cross-examination Maseko explained that Learner Z contacted him via the voice note as it was the first person, they called due to him reprimanding them earlier that day. Learner Y’s mother said she was not close to her daughter, and she could not access her grandmother, hence he was the only person as his WhatsApp group was always running.
138. During cross-examination Maseko explained that he lived closer to the learners, Learner Y stayed in the hostel, and her mother stayed in Meadowlands. It was far to access her mother while dying. He was not saying that he was closer to her. He knew Learner Y mother as some parents stayed close, and others stayed far away. If learners were not at school, they communicated with their parents.
139. During cross-examination Maseko explained that he never communicated with Learner Y via text, nor communique. The only time was when he received the voice notes from Learner Z.
140. During cross-examination Maseko explained that regarding Learner Y suicide attempt, he had mixed emotions, as to whether or not he assisted, they may have thought it was true.
141. During cross-examination Maseko explained that he forwarded the voice notes to Ms Mpamonyane, as she came to him regarding the rumours, as he wanted to make her aware that he was not doing anything funny.
142. During cross-examination Maseko explained that there was no relationship. When he approached the learners, Learner Y did not take it well and he was hard when he reprimanded them. On the same day, Learner Y drank the poison. He ended the rumours, and he did not end the relationship.
143. During cross-examination Maseko explained that he did not come to school on 16 April 2025, as there wasn’t any water in the area, it was merely a coincidence. He did not report his absence to his Supervisor and Principal as it was not a good situation, in light of the allegations. He was not comfortable to approach them. He did not report to the Principal, as he was ashamed and scared, as his colleagues informed him that during the SMT meeting the Principal was angry and she did not want to see him in the school premises.
144. During cross-examination Maseko explained that he was hurt that the Principal already decided that he was guilty, yet it was still to be decided via the investigation. Whether he did it or not, it took a toll on him it was like going to jail.
145. During cross-examination Maseko explained that when he returned to school, he went straight to class, but he still felt ashamed due to the allegations.
146. During cross-examination Maseko explained that Learner Y lied to her mother and fabricated her story, as a parent required an explanation. Maybe Learner Y had a crush on him. During the proceedings, Learner Y did not lie, she fabricated her story, and she was not honest with herself.
147. During re-examination, Maseko explained that he disputed Ms Mpamonyane minutes that he was not the only one involved with learners. There was no such. It was all a fabrication.
148. During re-examination, Maseko explained that the reason why he was not at school on 16 April 2025, was due to that there wasn’t any water in his area.
149. During re-examination, Maseko explained that he did not have any sexual relations with Learner Y.
     Summary of arguments
150. Both parties submitted extensive written closing arguments which form part of the record and will not be repeated here. The parties were directed to address the issues of guilt, appropriate sanction, should the Employee be found guilty, and his fitness to work with children, should he be found guilty. I have considered the arguments, together with the other evidence, oral and documentary, presented by the parties during the inquiry, as reflected in the record of the hearing. I must place on record that whilst the Employee/Employee’s representative were informed to address me in their closing arguments insofar as Section 120 of the Children’s Act, they did not address me specifically on that in their closing arguments.

Analysis of evidence and argument

151. This inquiry was conducted in terms of the principles contained in section 188A, as well as Schedule 8 of the LRA, and ELRC Collective Agreement 3 of 2018, in respect of the fairness of disciplinary action against educators charged with sexual misconduct in respect of learners. In applying those principles, the following factors were considered as outlined in the Government Gazette Vol 723 (4 September 2025):
     a) “Any person who is deciding whether a sanction for misconduct is fair should consider –
     (1) Whether the employee contravened a rule or standard regulating conduct in, or relevance to, the workplace;
     (2) if a rule or standard was contravened –
     (a) whether the rule was a valid and 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.”
152. The LRA does not prescribe the standard of proof to be used in labour matters. It is, however, universally accepted that the standard of proof that is applicable in disciplinary hearings, and therefore inquiries by arbitrators of this nature is identical to the civil standard – “the employer must prove the case against the employee on the balance of probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt” – Meadow Feeds (Pietermaritzburg) vs. Sweet Food and Allied Workers Union (1998) Arb1.2.1.
153. All the allegations in the charge against the Employee, as well as the evidence, documentary and otherwise, deduced in support thereof by the Employer, and the evidence deduced by the Employee in defence, were considered and weighed against the abovementioned standard of proof.
154. It is not disputed by the Employee that he denied the allegations that he had been charged with as follows:
     Allegation 1:
155. “It is alleged that on/or around March 2025, you had sexual relationship with a Grade 12 (D) learner from Anchor Comprehensive School where you are currently teaching”.

In view of the above you are thus charged with misconduct in terms of Section 17(1)(c) of the Employment of Educators Act 76 of 1998 as amended.

156. I am mindful of the fact that the Employee is charged with, inter alia, sexual misconduct (sexual relationship with a learner). This is even more applicable where a trust relationship is abused. As arbitrator one should, however, be conscious of the need to not to prejudge, but to objectively consider the facts of the matter on a balance of probabilities and credibility of the evidence adduced.
157. In respect of the all the allegations the Employee disputes the version of the Employer’s witnesses, and denies any wrongdoing, and I must decide on a balance of probabilities which version to accept.
158. The Employee’s defence in respect of the alleged sexual misconduct is a blanket denial of any wrongdoing. He submits that it is all a “fabrication” of lies. He vehemently denied the allegation levelled against him.
159. I must indicate that the Employer’s first witness, Mpamonyane, made it very clear from the outset, that she did not want to be part of the proceedings. She further submitted that she wrote the “SMT meeting as the secretary”. She denied making any further comments or concessions. Furthermore, she indicated that she was “shocked” that the SMT meeting minutes were in this forum, as it was confidential information.
160. With the evidence before me, Mpamonyane, indicated 3 (three) times in the documentary evidence written by herself that “she spoke to Sir Maseko on Tuesday the 15th April 2025. Mr Maseko confirmed that he was in a relationship with Learner Y Shikonele and confirmed that he had ended the relationship on Monday the 14th of April 2025”, in the undated letter addressed to the Circuit Manager. This was corroborated by the SMT meeting minutes wherein she wrote “I learned that Mr Maseko is having sexual relationship with Learner Y in Grade 12D….” and “the learner is visiting Mr Maseko at Thokoza in the East Rand” in the meeting minutes dated 16 April 2025. Furthermore, it was again mentioned in her letter/statement dated 17 April 2025, wherein she indicates “today in the morning Sir Maseko came to my office to explain that he will deny having slept with Learner Y Shikonnele but will agree that he is in a relationship with her”. The version was corroborated by Mokoena that the “SMT meeting minutes were a true reflection what transpired” and what she was informed. An inference can be drawn that Maseko made a confession to Mpamonyane regarding the relationship.
161. The Employer’s witnesses, Learner X submitted in her evidence in chief that Learner Y made use of her cell phone to chat with Maseko as they were “jolling” together. She furthermore conceded that she did not view the chats and subsequently they were deleted including Maseko’s number. She conceded they “they were having an affair and dating each other”. This version was furthermore corroborated by Learner Z that they were “dating”.
162. I would be required to make a credibility finding insofar as the versions were concerned. Learner X and Z first indicated that Maseko and Learner Y were “dating and having affair”, however, subsequently indicated that whole thing was “non-existent” and Learner Y was lying.
163. With the evidence before me, Shikonele was clear in her testimony, and it was substantiated in her statement that her daughter drank poison, and she was subsequently hospitalized. Her daughter “told her that she was having an affair with her teacher, so now their private relationship is known by learners and teachers would have an impact on the teacher’s job or career. That’s what triggered the suicide attempt”. Shikonele maintained her testimony throughout the proceedings.
164. It was common cause that Learner Y attempted suicide by drinking rat poison on 15 April 2025. The very same day Maseko called in all 3 (three) learners, Learner X, Y & Z in order to address the alleged “rumours” that must stop immediately.
165. With the evidence before me, Learner Y vehemently denied texting Maseko, nor being in a relationship with him. She furthermore submitted that she took Learner X phone pretending to communicate with Maseko, however, she was communicating with her boyfriend. She furthermore denied that she told her mother that she was having a relationship with a teacher and subsequently conceded during cross-examination that she had “tell her mom what she told others”. Furthermore, during cross-examination she submitted what “brought on her attempted suicide was that her life was being exposed. When Maseko was introduced to them, she had a “crush” on him, it was on all of the girl’s lips”.
166. With the evidence before me, due to the very unfortunate circumstances involving Learner Y on the very same day Maseko instructed her to stop the “rumours” and inference can be drawn that Learner Y was clearly distraught and upset as testified by Learner X, Z and Maseko. Due to the fact that the relationship had now ended. Subsequently, later on during the day she attempted suicide.
167. It was rather puzzling to contemplate that Learner Y was in a dire life-threatening situation, and yet she instructed Learner Z to call Maseko in her dire life-threatening situation as the first point of contact. I find this rather peculiar that a child would not reach out to their parents, grandparents etc in this extreme situation, yet Maseko was contacted using the contact details from the neighbour.
168. It was not disputed that Maseko received voice notes from Learner Z informing him on the dire situation, yet he merely forwarded them to Mpamonyane. An inference was drawn that Mpamonyane was well aware of the situation, hence she was the first contact for Maseko.
169. Maseko vehemently denied communicating with Learner Y and having a relationship with her. During cross-examination he conceded that Learner Y mother lived far away (in Meadowlands), hence Learner Z reached out to him during the suicide attempt. An inference can be drawn here that Maseko knew Learner Y family set-up, in that her mother resided in Meadowlands. One can’t help but question when there are many learners in the grade, why Maseko would know specifically where Learner Y mother resided, I find it on the borderline of bizarre.
170. It was not disputed that Maseko was absent from school on 16 April 2025, 25 April 2025 and 5 May 2025. It was Maseko’s version that there wasn’t any water in the area on 16 April 2025; hence he was not at school. An inference can be drawn in this regard, in that he was absent from school the day after Learner Y suicide attempt, when the relationship was ended by Maseko, due to Learner Y being hospitalised.
171. Whilst Maseko denied the allegations levelled against him, he failed to substantiate, nor corroborate his version. He submitted that the reason why Learner Y attempted suicide as she had a “crush” on him. Furthermore, he failed to provide proof of his whereabouts on 16 April 2025, nor regarding the other absences that were mentioned.
172. It was not disputed that Mokoena cautioned him about relations with learners when he commenced employment.
173. Maseko during cross-examination conceded that he failed to report his absences as he felt “ashamed and scared” and “he could not face the learners”. He furthermore conceded that when he heard of Learner Y suicide attempt, he had “mixed emotions, as to whether or not he assisted, they may have thought it was true”. An educator would reasonably attempt to assist, or the relevant IDSO contact person in these circumstances, yet it was peculiar that Maseko did not want to assist “as they may have thought it was true”.
174. Leaner Z contradicted her statement that she found “sir’s apartment where I happened to find Sir at the presence of my friend and Sir Maseko was sitting on top of the bed inside the room”, she subsequently conceded in her evidence in chief that Learner Y in fact told her that.
175. It appeared that Learner X, Y and Z were coerced in saying that the whole thing was a “rumour”, “lies” and “non-existent” in an attempt to cover and protect Maseko concerning the allegations levelled against him, as what they submitted orally, differed as compared to their statements.
176. In South African Sugarcane Research Institute v CCMA and others (D 1148/18) the Court held that “they upheld the approach adopted by the Commissioner in dealing with mutually destructive versions of the parties. The Commissioner correctly applied the test as set out in Stellenbosch Farmers Winery Group Ltd and another v Martell et Cie and others 2003 SA 11 (SCA) and considered the internal contradictions of the evidence led by the Respondent’s key witness, the probability of the version, and the possible motive for fabricating a story”.
177. In light of the above-mentioned authorities when dealing with conflicting versions, I find that Shikonele and Mokoena were both credible and reliable witnesses. Whilst Mpamonyane was a hostile witness. Leaner X and Z were consistent in their testimonies and only later submitted that it was all a story. Learner Y was a defensive and evasive witness. Maseko was a poor witness and at times he appeared to be evasive.
178. The Employee failed to corroborate nor substantiate his version that it was a “fabrication of lies” and that it was all a “narrative”.
179. The only inference that can be drawn in these circumstances in that Maseko was having relations with Learner Y and when he addressed the learners on 15 April 2025, in order to end the relationship as it was known, Learner Y then attempted suicide.
180. I am mindful that several versions were not put to the Employer’s witnesses from the Employee, inter alia that Learner Y attended a soccer match together with Maseko and that he took Learner Y home in Thokoza to meet his family. Furthermore, that Learner Y made use of Learner X phone to text/communicate with Maseko and that he told her to “keep distant”, amongst others, and it was also never proven by the Employee. This is a material aspect of this case. In the case of NUM and another v CCMA and others [2018] 3 BLLR 267 (LAC) the Court found that “since keys aspects of the employee’s case were not put to the employer’s witnesses in cross-examination and had not been canvassed in the evidence of those witnesses in chief, their version on such aspects was not placed before the commissioner”. The same principle will therefore apply in this matter.
181. I find it highly improbable that the Learner X, Y and Z and other witnesses fabricated the allegations levelled against the Employee. It would have been an elaborate fabrication involving educators, learners, and a parent with the intent to get rid of the Employee, which I find highly improbable in these circumstances.
182. I find the Employee’s version that the Learners decided to fabricate their stories and Learner Y and Mpamonyane both “lied” highly improbable and far from the truth. Learner Y version that she was in fact texting her boyfriend, Mr Mininhle and not Maseko version to be highly unlikely and far from the truth in an attempt to “cover up for Maseko”. The Employee’s version that it was a “fabrication of lies” is therefore not plausible.
183. In Harber, 2004:98 “the equality principle in undermined, because power and authority relationships between teacher and learner are, not equal and teachers have a professional responsibility to treat all learners equally, which cannot be the case if sexual relations are taking place with certain individuals”.
184. In the case of Anglo American Farms t/a Boschendal Restaurant v Komjwayo (1992) 13 ILJ 573 (LAC) the Court held that “this trust that the employer places in the employee is basic to and forms the substratum of the relationship between them. A breach of this duty goes to the root of the contract of employment and of the relationship between employer and employee”.
185. Learners have the right to education, such that they must be within a nurturing, safe and caring learning environment. They should feel protected. Maseko was in a position of power within the context of a teacher/learner. I am mindful that the learner was in Grade 12, however, it is trite that under no circumstances Educators may be in a love relationship with learners. Such a relationship is completely inappropriate. Furthermore, such conduct is completely unacceptable and unspeakable in its entirety.
186. Therefore, with consideration of all the relevant cautionary rules I find that the Employer provided evidence that proves on a balance of probabilities that the employee committed the misconduct as contained in charge/allegation 1. There is, therefore, evidence before me that proves that the Employee contravened a rule or standard regulating conduct in, or of relevance to, the workplace.
     Finding
187. The accused employee, Mr Maseko, T I is found guilty of the following misconduct:

Allegation 1:

188. “It is alleged that on/or around March 2025, you had sexual relationship with a Grade 12 (D) learner from Anchor Comprehensive School where you are currently teaching”.

In view of the above you are thus charged with misconduct in terms of Section 17(1)(c) of the Employment of Educators Act 76 of 1998 as amended.

Sanction

189. In considering an appropriate sanction, I am required to exercise my discretion reasonably, honestly and with due regard to the general principles of fairness.
190. Although the Employer charged Maseko, with having a sexual relationship with a learner under section 17(1)(c) of the EEA. Under no circumstances can Educators have relations with learners. Maseko’s conduct is in direct contravention of the values and obligations prescribed by The Code of Professional Ethics of Educators. He failed to act in a proper and becoming way so that his behavior does not bring the teaching profession into disrepute. The Code places emphasis on educators refraining from any form of sexual relationship with learners and furthermore not abusing the position he holds for personal gain. Section 28(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 108 of 1996 provides that “a child’s best interests are of paramount importance in every matter concerning the child”.
191. Section 17(1)(c) of the EEA states that dismissal is the mandatory sanction for the misconduct of sexual relations with a leaner, which I have to keep in mind considering the nature of Maseko’s misconduct. Having considered all the facts before me, including but not limited to, the gravity of the offence, the position of trust the Employee was employed in, and the limited months of service of the Employee, I do find that the sanction of dismissal is fair and appropriate in these circumstances.
192. I find that summary dismissal is an appropriate sanction in the circumstances.

Sanction

193. In terms of section 188A(9) of the LRA I direct that the employee, Mr Maseko, T, be dismissed summarily.

Finding in respect of section 120 of the Children’s Act 38 of 2005

194. Section 120(1)(c) of the Children’s Act 38 of 2005 (“the Act”) provides that a finding that a person is unsuitable to work with children may be made by “any forum established or recognized by law in any disciplinary proceedings concerning the conduct of that person relating to a child”. Section 120(2) of the Act provides that a finding that a person is unsuitable to work with children may be made by such a forum on its own volition or on application by an organ of state or any other person having sufficient interest in the protection of children. The arbitrator may also make the finding on his/her own accord.
195. The parties were given the opportunity to submit arguments in this respect. I have considered the parties’ submissions. Bearing in mind, the Employee failed to provide any submissions in this regard, even though I requested same. In view of my finding of the serious nature of the Employee, Mr Maseko, T conduct and the priority to protect the rights of children, I find that he is unsuitable to work with children. The fact that there are no previous incidents on record, does not necessarily mean that his conduct will not be repeated. In tribunals of this nature, consideration of the best interests of children, is paramount. My finding is aimed at the protection of children and in particular in this case, girl learners.
196. Mr Maseko, T is found unsuitable to work with children in terms of section 120(4) of the Children’s Act 38 of 2005. The General Secretary of the ELRC must, in terms of section 122(1) of the Act, 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 Maseko, T 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.

Leanne Alexander
ELRC Arbitrator
20 November 2025