IN THE MATTER OF EDUCATION LABOUR RELATIONS COUNCIL
ELRC 208-24/25 GP

BETWEEN

JONES SEHOANA Applicant

AND

GAUTENG DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Respondent

Panelist: Mmeli Danisa
Case No: ELRC 208-24/25 GP
Date of Award: 27 May 2025

ARBITRATION AWARD

DETAILS OF HEARING AND REPRESENTATION

1. The Arbitration into the alleged unfair dismissal dispute, referred in terms of section 191(1) (a) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (the Act).
2. The hearing was conducted online and physically from 02 August 2024 until 16 April 2025.
3. The Applicant, Mr. Dioaa Jones Sehoana, was present and represented by Adv. Leonard Moshea Moloi. The Respondent, Gauteng Department of Education, was represented by Mr. William Mapela Mmola, acting Deputy Chief Education Specialist.
4. The Applicant’s position was a Post Level 4 (PL4) Principal of Larochelle Primary School (“primary school”), earning R54,594.38. He was employed on 01 July 1998, and his date of dismissal was 12 April 2024.
5. The Applicant submitted Bundle A with 53 pages, and the Respondent submitted Bundle R with 93 pages. The proceedings were digitally recorded, and electronic notes were taken and formed part of the award.
   POINT IN LIMINE/ PRE-LIMINARY ISSUES
6. There is no preliminary issue.
   ISSUE TO BE DECIDED
7. As confirmed on record, the issues to be decided were whether the Applicant’s dismissal was procedurally and substantively fair.
   Opening Statements
8. The Applicant stated that,
   8.1. The Applicant denies committing the 5 charges. They used documentary evidence and viva voca evidence through witnesses. The Applicant seeks retrospective reinstatement with all benefits.
9. The Respondent stated that,
   9.1. The Respondent was charged with 5 charges of misconduct and found guilty. They used documentary evidence and viva voca evidence through witnesses. The Respondent seeks that the dismissal be upheld.
   PROCEDURAL
10. The Applicant challenges the following aspects in the procedure, namely;
    10.1. The Disciplinary hearing was conducted in the Applicant’s absence whilst the Applicant provided sick notes to justify the absence.
    SUBSTANTIVE
11. The Applicant challenges the validity of the charge as he contends that he is innocent and that there was no substance to the charges against him.

BACKGROUND TO THE DISPUTE

12. The Applicant was given five charges , namely;
    • Charge 1: Mismanagement 18(1) b
    • Charge 2: Mismanagement 18(1) b
    • Charge 3: Mismanagement 18(1) b
    • Charge 4: Mismanagement 18(1) b
    • Charge 5: Dishonesty 18(1) ee
13. The issue remains whether the Applicant’s dismissal was substantively and procedurally fair.
    SURVEY OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS
14. I am not going to give an exhaustive survey of all the evidence and arguments presented during the arbitration hearing. What follows is a concise summary of evidence relevant to my findings only.
    THE RESPONDENT’S CASE
15. The Respondent called in three witnesses who testified under oath.
16. Mr. Mandla Dlamini (“Mandla”) was the Respondent’s first witness. In his sworn evidence, he testified as follows:
    16.1. He is the former chairperson of the Primary school.
    16.2. Allegation 1: Claimed funds for cleaning materials were misused. Only 3 mops were seen despite the specified quantities and amounts invoiced. The supplier was not verified and used a personal bank account.
    16.3. Allegation 2: R3,000 withdrawal was pre-authorised while the Applicant was away, which is against policy.
    16.4. Allegation 3: The Service provider for building plans, Umlibo Wakwantu (“Umlibo”), was appointed without SGB approval. The appointment form lacked proper signatures.
    16.5. Allegation 4: Claimed fraud occurred to the tune of R178,500 transaction during the holidays. The Applicant was the only one who received the OTP for EFT payments (such as the one made for this payment).
    16.6. It is therefore plausible that the Applicant was aware of the payment which was made and that he was the one who made said payment.
    16.7. Allegation 5: Asserted that the Applicant dishonestly obtained a new bank card without SGB’s knowledge, contrary to a previous resolution.
17. Mr. Frans Mashiane (“Frans”) was the Respondent’s second witness. In his sworn evidence, he testified as follows:
    17.1. Reaffirmed improper procurement processes: lack of signatures, payment before municipal approval.
    17.2. Explained GDE policies requiring 3 signatures for transactions over R10,000.
    17.3. Confirmed that the Applicant was the sole signatory on the bank account and the recipient of the OTP.
    17.4. The Applicant acted unilaterally and dishonestly in managing school finances.
18. Mr. Vongani Phephenyani (“Vongane”) was the Respondent’s third witness. In his sworn evidence, he testified as follows:
    18.1. He was appointed by the department as the presiding officer of the Applicant’s hearing. The hearing proceeded in the Applicant’s absence and, he heard testimony, and he dismissed the Applicant.
    18.2. The hearing had been scheduled several times, and days before the hearing, the Applicant would submit medical certificates, and he concluded that he was evading the hearing. A medical certificate is not a postponement and hearsay, and the Applicant needed to submit a postponement application.
    18.3. Furthermore, it appears that the Applicant was merely absent on the dates surrounding the hearings. The Applicant was fit and well on other dates, but for the dates when he was served with hearing and pre-hearing notices.
    18.4. He drafted the postponement ruling (R2:32-35) and informed the Applicant that the hearing would proceed on the 16th of February 2024 (which was moved to 19 February 2024 and communicated to the Applicant).
    18.5. He was responsible for ensuring that the hearing proceeded, but the sick notes for the other dates were not presented to him, and he had not seen them. He is aware that Mr. Mmola was not his supervisor. The Applicant did not have to send Mr. Mmola any other sick notes, but those that are for and/ or in line with hearings.
    18.6. He was unaware whether the sick notes were sent to the Applicant’s supervisor for the period he was not attending his hearing. He made his ruling based on the information before him, which was the fact that there were sick notes only for the period he was called for hearings by way of notices.
    18.7. He is unaware of whose responsibility it was to confirm if the Applicant had sick notes for other dates, other than the ones for the hearing.
    18.8. He has seen that the Applicant has sick notes for the period he suspected or stated he had none, but he cannot confirm whether these sick notes were submitted to his supervisor. His ruling to proceed was based on the information before him generally, and the sick notes he was provided at the time, which did not cover dates outside the hearing dates.
    THE APPLICANT’S CASE
19. The Applicant had one witness testify on his behalf, and the Applicant also testified as follows:
    19.1. He is the former principal of La Rochelle Primary School. He has been a teacher since 01 July 1998 and was a principal of the school since 01 September 2014. He was a principal for nine (9) years, and this was the first time he was charged by the department.
    19.2. He has worked with 5 different chairpersons in his 9 years as a principal. He never had a challenge with the chairpersons before Mandla, with whom he had a good relationship initially.
    19.3. His relationship with Mandla soured after the department embarked on building classes for the school and sent the school about R1 million. He had to be the accounting officer and had to protect this money, and this started to cause a rift.
    19.4. A self-build project committee was established, which he and Mandla were members of, along with three other members (5 in total). Mandla recommended one of his friends’ companies to draw plans, and he did not agree with them. This was when their relationship soured.
    19.5. There was a GA cleaner post where he was required to recommend the previous treasurer for the post without following the appropriate processes, and he refused as he wanted to follow the correct procedures. This further created a rift with him and Mandla.
    19.6. After his suspension, the process ran, and Yvonne was recommended for the post in his absence.
    19.7. His immediate supervisor in the district was the IDSO, Mr. Nkululo Mathews (“Mathews”), who was not aware of the processes that were occurring, namely;
    19.7.1. The allegations were sent to the district director (“Ndlovu”) and the circuit manager (“Lawrence).
    19.7.2. In February, Lawrence called him to his office and informed him of anonymous allegations sent to the department via email.
    19.7.3. He was informed to think it through as he would not survive the allegations and he was advised to resign as there was damning evidence against him and that Yvonne and Mandla did not want him at the school.
    19.8. He called Mathews and met with him to discuss what happened in his meeting with Lawrence. Mathews said he was unaware of any allegations, and he advised him not to resign but to allow them to charge him, and that he should defend himself if he is innocent.
    19.9. He followed Mathews’ advice as he knew the allegations were fabricated. He was given a letter which required him to respond, and he submitted his response to the HR Department on 09 May 2023.
    19.10. On 15 May 2023 Mr. Mmola presented him with a suspension letter and charges. He was told to rush and give it to him a day earlier. He informed Mathews who was also unaware of his suspension letter. He was told to leave the school and he should not communicate with anyone from the school.
    19.11. He left to meet Mathews, and he has never been back to the school. He became sick from depression, and he had medical sick notes that he reported to Mathews. He had a representative in his case, Ronald Nyathi (“Nyathi”), who would submit his sick notes when he had hearings during his sick period.
    19.12. He was informed that the Nyathi could no longer be his representative as he was no longer an employee. He was requested to get an affidavit confirming his sickness, and his doctor refused, saying a sick note was sufficient. The chairperson informed him that they had held the hearing in his absence, and he was dismissed.
    19.13. A:8 is his doctor’s medical note. He was booked off from 07 August – 01 September 2023.
    19.14. A:9 is his doctor’s medical note. He was booked off from 11 September – 29 September 2023.
    19.15. A:10 is his doctor’s medical note. He was booked off from 10 October – 03 November 2023.
    19.16. A:11 is his doctor’s admission note. He was booked from 05 November – 08 December 2023.
    19.17. A:12 is his doctor’s admission note. He was booked from 13 December – 18 January 2024.
    19.18. A:13 is his doctor’s sick note. He was booked off from 25 January– 29 February 2024.
    19.19. His hearing was scheduled for 19 February 2024. He did not attend the hearing because he was booked off sick during that period.
    19.20. A:14 is his doctor’s letter written after the request for an affidavit.
    19.21. Policies are drafted by the SGB, and the department needs to endorse them before they are adopted. This occurred with regard to the finance policy which had been signed and endorsed on the second week of January 2023.
    19.22. R: 83- 93 is the policy that was approved in November 2022 and was effective from January 2023. The policy signatories are himself, Mandla, Matthews, and Ndhlovu but Matthews pp signed for Ndhlovu.
    19.23. The policy does not have a clause on the 3 signatories on documents.
    19.24. R:45, allegation 1 read. He paid the alleged money for cleaning material that was requested by the cleaning staff. The money was paid after a quotation was submitted and after the material was delivered on 09 December 2022. He spoke to the treasurer, and she gave him the go-ahead while she was in Limpopo and the chairperson was not available, as he was in parliament.
    19.25. He did not have the required three quotes as he had left the school in a rush. The cleaning staff received the material and signed the delivery note. He does not have access to these documents, which were in a file in his office.
    19.26. He used the banking details on the invoice. He did not see any other name, as alleged by Mandla.
    19.27. They do not order or purchase materials at the end of the year because of the fear of break-ins. He made the quotations in December. Payment was made in December for R4000 and R10,000 in January. The treasurer was informed and advised that he may make payment and the documents would be signed at a later stage.
    19.28. The teachers came to school on 09 January 2023 before schools opened. Yvonne and Mandla came to the school on 11 January 2023 when schools opened. The material was kept in the storeroom, and it lasted for the term, and could be evidenced by the fact that no one ever complained that the school was dirty or uncleaned.
    19.29. Mandla and Yvonne went to the hall and saw the material in the hall which was being used. They did not go into the storeroom to see the rest of the material. The allegation of only 3 mops being delivered is untrue. There was never a complaint about the grounds, toilets, and classrooms being unclean due to a shortage. The material was sufficient and used for the entire term.
    19.30. The material on the requisition on A:15 was delivered on 08 December 2022. The material on the invoice on A:17 was delivered on 05 January 2023. Yvonne and Mandla should have come on the dates the material arrived if they wanted to see the material.
    19.31. He did not withdraw R3000.00. The money was withdrawn at Southdale Mall, and it was withdrawn by the deputy principal. He was not at school as he had taken leave from 13-15 December 2022 and had informed Matthews he would be in Limpopo, Polokwane. He did as Matthews advised, which was that he ask the deputy principal to be in charge in his absence.
    19.32. He informed the deputy to withdraw the money and that she take care of the petty cash required payments. She did as he asked when he was away, and she did as he had requested and as illustrated or broken down and supported on A:20-33.
    19.33. He finds the above allegations untrue as he never used any of the money for his own personal gain or things.
    19.34. R:46, allegation 3 read. They formed a self-build project committee around late October to focus on the building project. There were 5 people in the committee, which included himself, Yvonne, and Mandla. They were tasked with inviting, selecting, and recommending a company to draw plans for the classrooms. The SGB would then decide on the recommendations made.
    19.35. They recommended a company that was requested to submit their plans. On 17 January 2023, he made a submission to the SGB committee, which agreed with the report. Mandla only attended 1 of the committee meetings, and he would update him as he was the only absentee, and he agreed to all that was submitted.
    19.36. In the meeting of 17 January 2023, two parents had to be replaced as they were no longer eligible to be in the SGB or committee, as their kids were no longer in the school, and Yvonne and another parent were included. The requisition for Umlibo was signed after the meeting.
    19.37. The meeting resolved that there be interviews for a company to construct the classrooms. Interviews were held, and a company was selected.
    19.38. R:65 is an appointment for the construction (Kubahki), which was signed by Mandla and himself, as resolved by the SGB.
    19.39. R:43 is an appointment for the drawing of plans, of Umlibo, which was signed by him as by the mandate of the self-build project and before the resolution of the SGB on 17 January 2023 for two people to sign the appointment.
    19.40. The school’s finance officer prepared the requisition and signed it along with himself and the then treasurer.
    19.41. He believes allegation 3 is not true.
    19.42. R:46, allegation 4 read. He is unaware of who paid the R148,500.00, as he did not make the payment. The transaction was made on Saturday, 08 April 2023, during school holidays while he was in Limpopo. He found out about the transaction when the treasurer called him to inform him.
    19.43. He informed the treasurer that he would check his work phone when he got home and that he would call the bank to enquire. He spoke to the bank, and they asked him various questions. He was then told that it appears like a fraudulent transaction. The bank had to open a fraud case to investigate the matter, and he was given a reference number. He was advised to get a bank statement and to open a case at the police station.
    19.44. He called an SGB meeting, and he reported on what transpired as per this transaction. As he was giving a report, the SGB members said they wanted to open a case, and he informed them it would be a duplication of the process, and they insisted, and he said they could go ahead. He shared the case number that he had received from Mophet police station the following day when he received it.
    19.45. He requested that the bank freeze the account, and he cancelled the bank card so there could be no further transactions. He told the SGB all this. He went to the bank with Yvonne and Isabel Monare (“Isabel”) on 20 April 2023 to collect the new bank card. He received the card and gave it to the treasurer. There was no further card given to him after this.
    19.46. Allegation 4 is untrue, and he did not commit the mentioned misconduct.
    19.47. R:46, allegation 5 read. He was transparent when making the new card. He went with two members of the SGB and gave the card to Yvonne. He did not commit any misconduct.
    19.48. There was no reason for the Respondent not to accept his doctor’s notes and to continue with his hearing in his absence, which was prejudicial to him.
    19.49. R: 12 and 45 are the notices for the pre-hearing and the charge sheet, which he received on 21 July 2023. He received a precautionary transfer on 15 May 2023.
    19.50. R:15 is an email of the sick note, which was sent on 07 August 2023, a day before the prehearing was to be held on 08 August 2023. The hearing was therefore postponed.
    19.51. R:19 is an email of the sick note, which was sent on 19 September 2023, a day before the prehearing was to be held on 20 September 2023. The hearing was therefore postponed.
    19.52. R:23 is an email of the sick note, which was sent on 12 October 2023, a day before the prehearing was to be held on 13 October 2023. The hearing was therefore postponed.
    19.53. He sent the sick notes to Matthews before and to HR on the day before the hearings.
    19.54. His medical sick notes were only for dates which were working days and not for school holidays, because he was not supposed to be at work.
    19.55. He exhausted his sick days from May – October 2023. There is a process for temporary and long-term incapacity leave when an employee exhausts their sick leave days. He submitted his temporary incapacity form to Matthews on a month-to-month basis. He is not aware that his leave was not approved.
    19.56. R:27 is a notice for a disciplinary hearing. R:29 notice was signed on 22 January 2024. R:31 is an email of the sick note, which was sent on 29 January 2024, a day before the prehearing was to be held on 30 January 2024. The hearing was therefore postponed.
    19.57. The doctors’ appointments are ad hoc and booked. He cannot just go when he wants. From 13 December 2023 to 18 January 2024, he was sick, he had sick notes, and he submitted them only to Matthews.
    19.58. R: 32- 35 is the postponement ruling, which decided to proceed in his absence.
    19.59. There were three (3) quotations for the SSK Mpofu tender as per the first allegation. He did not have access to the other sourced quotations which were in the SGB file, which he could not take when he left the school. He found this quotation in his bag after he had no access to the school.
    19.60. Payment needs to be made after there is an invoice and delivery note are issued. The requisition for the payment on A:15 for the quotation A:16 has an invoice which was in the SGB file.
    19.61. The finance officer filled in the document and brought it to him, and he signed it. The treasurer was informed about the transaction, and she gave them the go-ahead. He believes that the finance officer forgot to sign before he signed. Three people were aware of the transaction, even though he was the only one who signed.
    19.62. R:18 also had quotations sourced for three different companies, and SSK Mpofu was the lowest quote. The chairperson was not available in Cape Town, dealing with parliamentary duties, and he again spoke to the Treasurer, who was in Limpopo. She was aware of the payment, and she gave the go-ahead. Three people were aware of the transaction, even though he and the finance officer were the only people who signed.
    19.63. He spoke to the treasurer and the chairperson regarding signing the documents at the 17 January 2023 meeting, and they refused to sign the above documents.
    19.64. On 08 December 2022 and 05 January 2023, the general assistance employees (GA) were the ones who received the material that was delivered. He was informed that the material was delivered along with a delivery note, and he had to facilitate the payments.
    19.65. It is normal for the GA’s and not the deputy principal to receive cleaning material. The delivery persons would go to the admin office to deliver, and the admin checks if the principal is available, and if he is not available, then he sends the GA to receive.
    19.66. A:16 is a quotation made on 29 November 2022. He is unaware that Capitec did not have a business banking; he cannot say he failed in his duties as a result. He is aware that the service providers should be registered and should have business accounts.
    19.67. A:21-33 is the cash requisition form. He signed for all of them before he left for Limpopo on or around 12 December 2022. These were to be for petty cash payments, which is no more than R3000.00 monthly.
    19.68. He signed them on or around 12 December 2022. He signed the forms using different dates after 12 December 2022 (dates like 13th, 14th, and 15th December). He signed A:31 after he returned in January 2023, unlike the others, which he knew of prior.
    19.69. He signed for A:31 as though he had signed it on the day (13th), as that was when the individual was given the money.
    19.70. A:40 shows that 6 companies had submitted quotations regarding the plans that were to be drawn for the two classrooms.
    19.71. Umlibo was the one identified because they provided surveying and drawings and were the cheapest among the others that provided all the services. Company 2’s profile showed that they did more surveying and no drawing.
    19.72. A report was submitted to the SGB on 17 January 2023, and everyone agreed to go with Umlibo, hence why the requisition was signed on the same day by the treasurer.
    19.73. A:45 is the invoice for the payment that was approved.
    19.74. The plan for the drawings was not approved by the department. The SGB had done their duties, and they agreed to make payment for the work that was done. They could not foresee the plans not being approved.
    19.75. He is the only one who receives an OTP. He did not approve the payment; he did not receive the OTP for this payment. He did not have the phone with him. He communicated with the bank to show that he had been scammed. He believed his phone was hacked, and that’s why he opened a case and the bank said he would be informed what device was used and how.
    19.76. He never went to the bank but rather reported via a call, and he was asked if he wanted to block or stop the card, and he agreed on 08 April 2023. He was informed by the bank that the money was shared amongst 20 different accounts.
    19.77. He went to collect the new card on 20 April 2023. He was with the treasurer and another SGB member, Izabel Monare.
    19.78. A:44 is the requisition payment form, which was signed by himself, the author also signed who was also the finance director and the treasurer.
    19.79. If he were involved, he would have been arrested by now.
20. Ms. Thuli Ndimande (“Thuli”) was the Respondent’s first witness. In his sworn evidence, he testified as follows:
    20.1. She is a general assistant (“GA”) at the primary school. The Applicant was her principal for 7-8 years.
    20.2. Her role as a GA includes cleaning, collecting deliveries, and putting them where they are to be stored.
    20.3. On 29 November 2022, some deliveries arrived at school. It was the items listed on A:16, which she collected and took downstairs to the hall, where cleaning equipment is stored. The principal was present on the day, but she is unaware where he was at the time the items were delivered.
    20.4. On 05 January 2022, some deliveries arrived at school. It was the items listed on A:17, which she collected and took downstairs to the hall, where cleaning equipment is stored. She is unaware of where the principal was, but everyone was present in the office. She was there to clean the school.
    20.5. Chief (also a GA) is the one who signs for delivered goods; she and the other GAs help take the material downstairs to the hall where the cleaning material is stored. It is locked in a burglar gate and door.
    20.6. She believes the Applicant was incorrectly charged because they did not receive 3 Mops. They received all the stock listed, which was placed in the stock room. Bulk stock is bought to last an entire term, and the stock listed lasted for a period of 3 months.
    20.7. There is always someone from the School Management Team (“SMT”) involved in the collection of the deliveries. She sometimes comes when the above process is completed, and she is unaware who was there from SMT.
    20.8. She did not count the stock because it had already been counted, but there was a lot of material.
21. Ms. Portia Lepitse (“Portia”) was the Respondent’s first witness. In his sworn evidence, he testified as follows:
    21.1. She was the finance manager; she had worked with the Applicant for many years. The Applicant was the principal, and she was both the administrator and finance officer at some point, and then became only the finance officer.
    21.2. Her responsibilities for creating invoices, fundraising, keeping petty cash, loading payments, and getting authorisation from the SGB.
    21.3. The process of procurement begins initially with a quote presented to SGB, a requisition is filled in for the chosen service provider, and that would be taken by the principal to the SGB meeting for the SGB to authorize..
    21.4. The SGB would sign off the required document, and that is how she knows there has been approval, but sometimes they would call the SGB if they are not around, and they would allow for the process to continue, and they would sign afterwards.
    21.5. She makes the calls and/ or she is the one who would make the calls if she were available, or the principal would do it themselves. The processes are threefold: the requisition is prepared, and;
    21.5.1. The principal goes with it to the SGB meeting, where it is signed.
    21.5.2. The SGB is called and is called to sign before execution, and they come to sign, or
    21.5.3. The SGB is called, and they allow for the process to continue without signature, which is and/ or can be done after the fact.
    21.6. A:15 is a requisition she prepared. Her signature and that of the treasurer are not on the document. She signs a lot of documents, and she believes it was her error not signing the document. She is not sure why the document was not signed, but she is positive that she phoned the chairperson and sought the requisite authority as per the example above on paragraph 21.5.3.
    21.7. A:18 is a requisition she prepared. Her signature and that of the treasurer is not on the document. She remembers the process vividly regarding this requisition. She called Yvonne, who said she was in Limpopo and Mandla said he was in Cape Town.
    21.8. She does not agree with the fact that only 3 mops were delivered. Chief and/ or 1 of the other GA’s take the delivery note, count, tick, and check what is delivered, they take the stock to the storeroom, and then they bring the delivery note to the office.
    21.9. A:16 and 17 are invoices for material which was delivered and used by the school cleaning staff. She saw the SSK Mpofu truck, she called Chief to go collect the material, he brought the delivery note and invoice back to her.
    21.10. Regarding the second charge, the Principal was away in Limpopo. He left the card and instructed her to make the required payments and/ or claims (for travelling claims and petty cash). There is a claim book they use to note transactions (petty cash must be R3000 max, and travelling claims can be about R5000).
    21.11. She made claim forms and asked the Principal to pre-authorize the claims, so money could be taken out when required. A:20 is the spreadsheet she completes along with the supporting documents (A:21-33).
    21.12. The surplus of the R3000 was deposited back into the school account, and one of the slips appears at the top of A:20.
    21.13. She remembers filling in the requisition form (A:44) regarding charge 3. This was on the day the principal was meeting with the SGB. The requisition came back signed by herself, the principal, and Yvonne, the treasurer. This meant they agreed during the meeting, and they could make payment, which they did.
    21.14. Regarding charge 4, she remembers that the school account was hacked. It was over a long weekend. Two district officials came to the school on a particular date, and the SGB officials came, they entered the principal’s office and had a meeting.
    21.15. She entered at the end of the meeting and heard Mr. Mashiane say that the principal must take out the school bank card and should be handed over to Yvonne. The principal took it out, and he said he wanted to talk to us (the principal and her) with regards to the school finances. He said the school was section 25, she tried to raise her hand, and she was not allowed to ask.
    21.16. A period after the meeting, the principal informed her that the school card was frauded. It was during the school holidays. She is aware that the Applicant opened a case and closed the bank card. She is not convinced that the Applicant was able to mismanage the school funds in that period, as the SGB had the authority and the card.
    21.17. Charge 5 is not correct because he closed the previous card due to the fraud, the card that was with Yvonne, and he went with Yvonne to collect the new card. He saw them leaving for the bank on the day they went. Yvonne was the one with control over the card, and she remembers specific dates when Yvonne would get involved, as far as driving with cleaners to go get cleaning material.
    21.18. She is adamant that the signature that appears on the A:44 is a requisition with Yvonne’s signature above (chairperson/ Treasurer), and she did not see that the date was not included below, as per the Applicant who wrote the date. She has seen Yvonne’s signature on other documents and is sure it was her signature.
    21.19. She loads payments and/ or the Applicant if she is not around. The Applicant receives the OTP on his work phone, and payment is made. She is unfamiliar with what occurs with the OTP, but it is usually loaded in the payment process. The payment is loaded on the school laptop.
    21.20. She does not believe the Applicant could have loaded alone. She is unaware of who received the OTP during the period Yvonne was authorised to carry the card. She came in at the tail end of the meeting where the decision was made, so she is unaware of who received the OTP.
    21.21. He believes that the Applicant did not make any payments because they were under section 23, and they were warned not to make any payments in this period, especially during weekends and holidays, and the fraudulent act occurred during a holiday period.
    ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT
22. Section 138 (7) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 requires an arbitrator to issue an award with brief reasons. What follows is a summary of evidence and arguments presented at the arbitration hearing.

PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS

23. The disciplinary hearing proceeded in the Applicant’s absence despite his repeated submission of valid sick notes covering each of the hearing dates. The chairperson erred by:
    23.1. Concluding that the Applicant’s absences were strategic without objective evidence.
    23.2. Failing to verify or consider all medical certificates submitted to the Applicant’s supervisor (Mr. Mathews).
    23.3. Proceeding with the hearing and dismissal despite the existence of medical documentation covering the relevant periods.
24. This directly undermined the Applicant’s right to a fair process and participation in their hearing. As such, the Respondent failed to comply with the requirements of procedural fairness outlined in Item 4 of Schedule 8 of the LRA.

SUBSTANTIVE FAIRNESS – EVALUATION PER CHARGE
Charge 1: Mismanagement of Funds (Cleaning Material Procurement)

25. The Applicant provided credible evidence that cleaning materials were delivered and used, and the procurement occurred with the treasurer’s communication authority and/ or support. His version was corroborated by the finance officer and the GA. The Respondent failed to disprove the legitimacy of the transaction or establish that the Applicant acted dishonestly or outside expected norms.

Charge 2: Pre-authorized Withdrawal of R3000

26. The Applicant demonstrated that the withdrawal was executed by the Deputy Principal in his absence, with prior authorization and policy-compliant documentation. The finance officer corroborated this. The Respondent did not show that this withdrawal was unauthorized or amounted to misconduct.

Charge 3: Unauthorized Appointment of Umlibo

27. The Applicant credibly testified that the appointment followed the self-build committee recommendations and was ratified by the SGB. Requisition forms were signed, and supporting evidence aligned with procurement processes. The charge is not sustained.

Charge 4: Fraudulent Transaction of R178,500

28. The Respondent alleged that the Applicant was solely responsible for the transaction due to OTP access, but the Applicant and the finance officer both confirmed that a fraud case was reported. The Respondent offered no direct proof that the Applicant executed or approved the transaction. Thus, dishonesty was not proven.

Charge 5: Dishonest Acquisition of Bank Card

29. The Applicant went with SGB members to collect the new card after freezing the compromised account, and he handed it over to the treasurer. There is no evidence of secrecy or misconduct. This charge is unsubstantiated.

FINDING

30. The Respondent failed to discharge the burden of proving that the Applicant committed any of the alleged acts of misconduct. Moreover, the hearing was procedurally flawed. Therefore, the dismissal was both substantively and procedurally unfair.

AWARD

31. I make the following award:
    31.1. The dismissal of Mr. Dioaa Jones Sehoana (“the Applicant”) by the Gauteng Department of Education (“the Respondent”) was both substantively and procedurally unfair.
    31.2. The Respondent is ordered to retrospectively reinstate the Applicant to the position of Principal (Post Level 4) on the same terms and conditions that governed his employment prior to his dismissal on 12 April 2024, and considering any increments that may have occurred in his absence.
    31.3. The Applicant is to be paid back pay for the period 12 April 2024 to 15 May 2025, calculated at R54,594.38 per month:
    31.3.1. Total months: 13 months
    31.3.2. Back pay amount: R54,594.38 × 13 months
    31.3.3. Total Back Pay = R709,726.94
    31.4. The Respondent is directed to pay the Applicant the total amount of R709,726.94 (less income tax and other statutory deductions) on or before 30 June 2025.
    31.5. The Applicant is to report for duty on 02 June 2025.
    31.6. Interest will accrue on the above amount from 01 July 2025, in accordance with the provisions of section 143(2) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995.
    31.7. This award is final and binding and may be enforced in terms of section 143(1) of the LRA and may be made an order of the Labour Court in terms of section 158(1)(c) of the LRA.
    31.8. Each party is to pay their costs.

Commissioner: Mmeli Danisa