Panellist: Khuduga Tlale
Case Reference No.: ELRC329-24/25NC
Date of award: 21 May 2025

In the matter between:

Head of Department – Northern Cape Employer

And

Tebogo Anthony Moholo Educator

ARBITRATION AWARD

Details of hearing and representation

1. This matter was set down as an inquiry by arbitrator in terms of section 188A of the Labour
   Relations Act 66 of 1995 as amended (“the LRA”) between Head of Department – Northern Cape (“Employer”), and Mr. Tebogo Anthony Moholo (“Educator”) at Barkly West Higher Primary School in Barkly West on 29 October 2024, and concluded on 24 March 2025. Mr. G Pisane, Acting DCES, represented the Employer. The Educator appeared in person, and Mr. L Dixon, attorney, represented him. Background to the dispute
2. The Educator is currently employed as an Educator (PL1) at Barkly West Higher Primary School in Barkly West, Frances Baard District. The Educator acknowledged receiving the allegation against him well in advance on 15 July 2024. The notice of set down was served to the Educator on 09 October 2024. The Education Labour Relations Council (“Council”) appointed Mr. B Banga, as interpreter, and Ms. T Mokgwamme, as intermediary.
3. The allegations levelled against the Educator are as follows: Charge one- “On 22 May 2024, you have contravened section 17(1)(b) of the Employment of Educators Act 76 of 1998 (“EEA”) in that he inter alia committed an act of sexual assault by physically touching a learner’s buttocks without any consent, whilst he knew or ought to have known that he was not allowed to do so. Charge two- “On 22 May 2024, you have contravened section 18(1)(q) of the EEA in that he inter alia while on duty, he conducted himself in an improper, disgraceful, or unacceptable manner by touching the buttocks of a learner, whilst he knew or ought to have known that he was not allowed to do so”. For the purpose of this award, the name of the learner will be kept confidential, and the learner will simply be referred to as “the learner”. The Educator registered a plea of not guilty to the charges levelled against him.
4. These proceedings were conducted in English, and were manually, and digitally recorded. The parties submitted a bundle of document, which was marked bundle “E”. The parties agreed to submit the written heads of argument on 31 March 2025, and they both submitted.
5. In all matters in which an Employer wants to take disciplinary action against an Educator for an alleged sexual misconduct towards any learner, an inquiry by an arbitrator, as intended by section 188A of the LRA, and clause 32 of the Dispute Resolution Procedures of the Council, shall be mandatory. In this regard, I have noted section 3.3.1 of Collective Agreement 3 of 2018 of the Council.

Issue to be decided

6. I have to decide whether an Educator committed misconduct as per the allegations levelled against him. If I find that he did commit the misconduct, I have to decide on an appropriate sanction. Survey of Evidence Employer

First witness: Ms. Palesa Pakela

7. The witness testified under oath that the Employer employed her as an educator at Barkly West Higher Primary School. She is teaching English in grades 5 and 6. She stated that she was the subject teacher of the learner. On 22 May 2024 at around 13h00, she was busy at grade 6b. The two learners came in, including the learner. The other learner told her that the learner was crying because the Educator touched her buttocks. The Educator came in whilst she was with the learners’, and he asked what was the problem?
8. She stood up, and she went outside with the learners, while the Educator was standing at the classroom door. She gave the learner an opportunity to state what happened, and afterwards the Educator. The learner explained that she was sent to the staff room by Ms. Mataleni to look for a box. On her arrival at the staff room, she found an Educator at the printing room, and she asked him to help her to find a box. The Educator replied by saying she must look at the copy room, and she must look under the table. They did not find the box. The Educator further said that she must look behind the door, and that was when the Educator touched her buttocks.
9. The Educator stated that he asked the learner to look for the box at the copy room, and she further said that she must look under the table. They did not find the box. The Educator said that she must find the box behind the door, and that when he touched her buttocks. The Educator agreed that he met the learner, and she was looking for the box. The Educator said that he touched her buttocks mistakenly. She could not intervene further, and she requested an assistance from Ms. Seipatong, an educator. Both of them explained once again what had happened to Ms. Seipatong, and she asked them questions.
10. They reported this incident to the school principal. In the principal’s office, the Educator explained what happened, and he stated that the touching happened at the corridor. The learner also explained what happened. According to the learner, after the Educator touched her buttocks, he told her not to tell anyone. The learner further said that it was not the first incident, the Educator once told her that he loved her. On 23 May 2024, the learner’s parent came to school, and they had another meeting. The school principal informed the parent about the incident, and the Educator said that the learner made an advance to him, and he does not understand her behaviour. The Educator further said that he told Mr. Motshwari about the learner’s behaviour. The school principal suggested that what if both parent, and Educator to talk about this matter before reporting it to his authority. She had no knowledge whether they spoke.
11. Under cross-examination, she stated that the learner was a quiet, respectful, and smart person. The learner was accompanied by another learner, and this learner told her why the learner was crying. The other learner told her that the Educator touched the learner’s buttocks. The Educator came to the class while she was with the learners, and he asked whether they were fighting, and she replied by saying, no.
12. She confirmed that both the learner, and Educator gave her their side of the story. The learner did not mention any other educator at the staff room. The photocopy, and printing rooms are two different rooms. The Educator told her that he assisted the learner to find the box, and he accidentally touched her. It was her understanding that the incident happened inside the printing room. The Educator at the school principal’s office said that the incident happened at the corridor.
13. Under re-examination, she stated that the Educator did not dispute the learner’s version. She assumed that the incident happened at the printing room because the touching happened while looking for the box. The Educator did not say where the incident happened. Second Witness: Mr. Lebogang Kenneth Motshwari
14. The witness testified under oath that the Employer employ him as an educator, and the Educator is his colleague. Document “E17” was his written statement, and he was not forced to write it. On the day in question, he was setting at the computer room, and he was with Ms. Setlhokwe. The Educator arrived at the computer room to assist with the printing machine. The Educator was facing towards the school principal’s office together with Ms. Setlhokwe. The learner arrived, and she said that she was sent to ask for an empty box. The Educator as the nearest person, assisted her. They both left the room going to the duplication room, where normally put the empty box.
15. The two rooms were nearer to each other. He could not testify what happened at the duplication room because he was not there. He did not see them stopping at the corridor. He did not see them touching each other. They both came back with nothing, the learner left, and the Educator remained behind. He was teaching the learner social science at grade 6C, and she was hardworking, educationally gifted, quiet, and soft spoken. The Educator told him more than once that he does not like the learner leaning towards him. The learner once leant on his shoulder, and he found it uncomfortable. He could not recall Educator saying he reprimanded her.
16. Under cross-examination, he stated that the learner was standing at the computer room’s door. He could not observe any touching. There was a possibility that they touched each other at the corridor because it was small. On their return from the duplication room, the learner was not looking sad, or crying. He confirmed that he did not see them stopping at the corridor.
17. Under re-examination, he stated that the possibility did not happen. He could not be able to tell the actual facial expression of the learner on the day in question. Third Witness: the learner
18. The learner testified under oath that she was 12 years old in the year 2024, doing Grade 6. She knew the Educator as a Setswana teacher in the year 2024. On the day in question, she was sent to fetch an empty box at the staff-room. On her arrival, she asked the Educator for a box. The Educator checked at the secretary’s office, but did not find it. The Educator looked for the box under the table, and underneath the drawer. She looked for the box behind the door, that was when the Educator touched her buttocks. The Educator after touching her, he said that she must not tell anyone.
19. Later the Educator called her, and he told her that he found the box. She took the box, and she went to the classroom. She met the other learner, who she told her what happened. They reported this matter to Ms. Pakela. They were inside the classroom when the Educator arrived. Ms. Pakela took him outside. When they left the printing room, the Educator was in front. The touching did not happen at the corridor, and it was the first time the Educator touched her buttocks. The Educator once told her that he loved her, and he likes her lips. She denied ever leaning on the Educator’s shoulder.
20. Under cross-examination, she confirmed that she was accompanied by her mom, and aunt to the police station. She confirmed that she was the one who gave the events of the day in question as per “E13-E14”. She did not see whether the Educator was alone, or with anyone else. On her arrival at the staff-room, she noticed the Educator, and she requested his assistance. She did not notice other educators. She met Ms. Sebatse, and Portia after the incident. The Educator asked her, where was Mr. Tshabile, and she replied by saying she could not found him.
21. She went alone to check Mr. Tshabile, and the Educator did not touch her at the corridor. She was the first person to enter the printing room, and the Educator followed. The Educator was the first to leave, and she followed. She denied the allegation to say the Educator passed her at the corridor, on their way to the printing room, and he accidentally bumped her. She maintained that the Educator was in front from the secretary’s office, and she followed him. She arrived first at the printing room. She was standing at the printing room door, the Educator entered, and he looked at the cupboards, and he asked her to look at behind the door, and he touched her buttocks. The Educator said that she must not tell anyone.
22. The Educator passed her at the door of the printing room. The printing room could accommodate two people, and she was scared after the incident. She did not tell Ms. April because she was scared. Ms. April was her class-teacher, and she trusted her. She confirmed that she passed few classes after dropping the box to Ms. Mataleng. Nobody told her to go to Ms. Pakela. She was the one who initiated to go to Ms. Pakela.
23. Under re-examination, she stated that she entered the secretary’s office deeper. She was standing, and there was a space. The Educator passed her on that space to enter the room. She maintained that the touching did not happened at the corridor. Fourth Witness: Mr. Pakeng Moilwa
24. The witness testified under oath that the Employer employ him as the principal at Barkly West Higher Primary School. The incident was reported to him that the Educator touched the learner’s buttocks. He invited the learner’s aunt to the school to discuss this matter. The meeting was held, and Ms. Pakela was given an opportunity to present the learner’s complaint. Later the Educator was given an opportunity to put his side of the story. The Educator stated that he bumped the learner at the corridor, without mentioning the part of the body, he bumped. The Educator requested to speak with the learner’s aunt, and they spoke.
25. Under cross-examination, he stated that it was the Educator who requested to speak with an aunt. He denied the allegation to say it was him that requested the Educator to speak with an aunt. The learner was crying on the day in question. He had no knowledge of the learner’s character. The Educator, and Ms. Pakela had a good working relationship. He had no knowledge about any sour relationship between the Educator, and the deputy-principal, Mr. Kgosi. He had no knowledge of the telephone calls made by Mr. Kgosi to the Educator.
26. Under re-examination, he stated that the relationship between the Educator, and Mr. Kgosi had no bearing in this matter. The Educator asked for forgiveness to the aunt. Fifth Witness: Ms. Dimakatso Berend
27. The witness testified under oath that the learner was the child of her younger sister. The learner was a shy, down to earth, and soft spoken person. She normally experienced that the learner would come closer to the person she was speaking with. It was her son who told her about the incident. The son told her that the learner’s friends said that the Educator touched her buttocks. She immediately went to the school, and she met the school principal, who invited her to the meeting the following day.
28. She attended the meeting as per the invitation. At the meeting, Mr. Kgosi explained what happened. She was angry because the child was sent to the school to be safe. The Educator’s version was that he bumped the learner at the corridor and he said sorry. The Educator was surprised when he finds the learner’s crying at the classroom in the presence of Ms. Pakela. The Educator did not explain why he apologized. The Educator asked for the forgiveness of the learner, herself, and the family. She asked him why he asked for forgiveness, and he replied by saying he had a family problem, and if this matter proceed, his side of the story would not be listened.
29. Under cross-examination, she stated that she was staying with the learner. The learner was emotional when she arrived home. The reason the learner continues playing netball after the incident was maybe Ms. Pakela calm her down. The Educator asked for forgiveness when they had a private meeting. The Educator did not explain his personal encounters. She had no knowledge about the telephone calls from Mr. Kgosi to the Educator. Educator First Witness: Mr. Tebogo Anthony Moholo
30. The witness testified under oath that he had a good relationship with the learners at the school. Other learners’ normally come to him for an advice. He had a good working relationship with other staff members, except two colleagues. The incident occurred on 22 May 2024 at around 13h40. He was at the printing room with Mr. Motshwari, and Ms. Setlhokwe. He was assisted Ms. Setlhokwe with the printing machine. The learner arrived, but she did not enter the room, and she requested a box. He asked her to go to the copy room to look for Mr. Tshabile because he was in-charge of the copy room.
31. The learner went to the copy room, and on her return she stated that Mr. Tshabile was not there. He went out to assist her to look for a box, and when they turn the corner at the passage, he bumped the learner, and he immediately said that sorry. He went alone to the copy room. He did not bend down at the copy room because it was visible to see everything in that room. He did not find a box. The learner was in front at the corridor, and he went to the printing room, that where he found the box. He found the learner with Ms. April, and he gave her the box, and went back to the printing room.
32. There was no sign of the learner crying, or being upset after bumping her. They had a teacher and learner relationship. There were times while setting, and the learner came around the table like someone whispering on his ears, while other learners not doing so. He always reported the learner’s behaviour to Mr. Motshwari. The learner once came to him, and lean on his shoulder, and Mr. Motshwari said that she was doing the same thing to him. He stated that the learner was a soft spoken person. He denied the allegation to say he loved the learner. He stated that Mr. Kgosi phoned him while on a precautionary suspension saying he must pay the aunt of the learner.
33. Mr. Kgosi further stated that he would collect the money, but he would send someone to the aunt to drop the money. Mr. Kgosi made a second call, and he stated that he must give salary to pantsi because pantsi would be part of the tribunal, and he would be found not guilty. He listened to Mr. Kgosi without any words uttered. He had no good working relationship with Ms. Pakela because of the unaccounted fundraising money in the year 2023. The reason he stated that he was sorry for the incident was because the learner’s aunt was angry. He told the learner’s aunt that the worst thing also happened to his younger daughter.
34. Under cross-examination, he stated that he knew the learner as a subject teacher. The learner was humble, and soft spoken person. The learner did not go to the printing room, she ended up at the corridor. He did not walk in front of the learner. He did not look for the box underneath the table. Document “E10” was his statement, and he indicated in his statement that he looked for the box under the table. He did not ask the learner to look for the box behind the door. He confirmed that he bumped the learner whilst at the corridor.
35. Mr. Motshwari could not have seen him bumping the learner because of the angle when he bumped her. He maintained that the learner did not enter the room with him, and he did not leave the computer room with her. He bumped her with his right hand side on top side of her body. He had no knowledge which part of the body he bumped. He denied ever said he accidentally bumped the learner’s buttocks. He told Ms. Pakela that he bumped the learner at the corridor. He said sorry to the learner after bumping because he was raised with respect. He confirmed that the learner made him uncomfortable because she leans on top of him, and she came around the table to whisper in his ears. He always reprimanded her, and she reported her to Mr. Motshwari.
36. He did not say that he touched the learner’s buttocks because he thought, she was sexually attracted to him. He denied the allegation to say he said the leaner must not tell anyone after touching her buttocks. He said to the learner’s aunt “something like this happened to my daughter”. He denied the allegation to say he asked for forgiveness because he was guilty. Mr. Kgosi did not mention the figures to him over the phone. He did not meet pantsi, but what Mr. Kgosi said was that pantsi was part of the Council. The relationship between him and Mr. Kgosi was irreparable. Ms. Palesa came to testified against him because there was a beef between them, and she hates him.
37. Under re-examination, he stated that he did not want to mention rape, and he used the word something when he spoke with the learner’s aunt. He was not aware that bumping to a learner would constitute harassment. Second Witness: Mr. Bohutsana Thomas Kgosi
38. The witness testified under oath that he is employed by the Employer as a Deputy-Principal. He knew the Educator for almost ten (10) years. They had a good working relationship. He was part of the meeting when an Educator was informed that no one at the school must contact him. He made a contact with an Educator after his precautionary suspension. The Educator requested him to inform the learner’s family that he did not do it deliberately. He responded to him that he was not familiar with that family. He also phoned the Educator during his suspension.
39. The purpose of his phone call was to ask him, how he, and his family handling the situation. The reason for doing this was because he was once accused of rape, and he wanted to be there for him. He phoned him for the second time to inform him that the employer’s official was going to visit him, and he must not change his statement. He denied the allegation to say he phoned the Educator to request him to pay the learner’s family the money. He does not know that family, and he never meet them. He had no knowledge of the person, by the name of pantsi.
40. Under cross-examination, he confirmed that the Educator said to him that he must tell the learner’s family that he did not do it deliberately. During the meeting, the Educator said that he did not touch the learner deliberately. He denied ever asking the Educator to pay pantsi his salary. He had no knowledge about the meeting between the Educator, and the learner’s aunt.
41. Under re-examination, he stated that the phone calls to the Educator was about his well-being. He had no personal relationship with pantsi.

Survey of Argument

Employer

42. The Employer representative submitted that the Educator’s evidence was not satisfactory because he denied everything. The Educator tried to paint a picture that he was framed. The evidence of Mr. Kgosi was not disputed by the Educator’s party. The Educator touched the learner’s buttocks because he thought she was sexually attracted to him. The testimony of Ms. Pakela and the learner corroborated to each other. The Educator’s version was not corroborated by anyone. The learner had no reason to lie about the Educator.
43. The Educator was in the position of loco parentis at the school, and he was not permitted to make any romantic towards learners. The Employer representative submitted that if the Educator found guilty, he must be declared unfit and unsuitable to work with children, and that his name should be entered in the children offenders register. The Employer party proved the allegations against the Educator, and the Educator failed to rebut the allegations. The Educator must be found guilty as charged, and be dismissed.

Educator

44. The Educator’s representative submitted that the learner was the single witness, and her evidence must be cautioned. The cautionary rule must be applied in this matter. This proceeding must first find that the evidence of the witness was satisfactory in all material aspects. The evidence of other witnesses is hearsay because they were told by the alleged victim. The evidence of the learner was not satisfactory, and very bad nature.
45. The Educator is a teacher by heart, and by qualification. If he found guilty, would have dire consequences as he would be unable to continue working as a teacher. To find him guilty as a result of single witness evidence of the alleged victim would not serve as justice. Based on the above, the Educator be found not guilty on the charges levelled against him.

Analysis of evidence and argument

46. Section 28(1)(d) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa provides, among other things, that: “Every child has a right –
    “to be protected from maltreatment, neglect, abuse or degradation”. Furthermore, this Section also provides that “A child’s best interests are of paramount importance in every matter concerning the child”. The above provisions are therefore important consideration in deciding the issue before me.
47. The allegations against the Educator is that he committed an act of sexual assault by physically touching a learner’s buttock without any consent, whilst he knew or ought to have known that he was not allowed to do so. He was also charged for conducting himself in an improper, disgraceful and unacceptable manner by touching the buttocks of a learner, whilst he knew or ought to have known that he was not allowed to do so. A false claim of sexual assault has very serious implications for the person against whom the allegations are made. Not only could such a person lose his job with very little hope of finding similar employment, but his family, and community standing can be negatively affected. The arbitrator has a duty to determine if the Educator is fit to work with children. Once declared unsuitable, the ELRC has a duty to submit a report to the Director-General of Social Development to be added to the National Register For Sex Offenders. Whether Educator guilty?
48. The Educator entered a plea of not guilty. In Mbanjwa v Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd and others (DA 4/11) (2013) ZALAC 29 (handed down on 7 November 2013) the Court held that the test at all times remains one of balance of probabilities. Reasonable or strong suspicion is not adequate to terminate the employment relationship. It is expected from the Employer to adduce evidence to prove that the Educator committed a gross misconduct that warrant a dismissal. The question that needed to be ask is whether the Employer produced evidence to support the charge of misconduct for which the Educator disciplined for?
49. Reading of this allegation against the Educator, the Employer is alleging that the Educator physically touched a learner’s buttocks without any consent. The Employer was required to prove that the Educator physically touched a learner’s buttock, and there was no consent for touching her.
50. The Educator is placed at the scene from the onset, and him, and learner’s version of events leading up to the alleged incident of sexual assault are not dissimilar. For an example, the version to the effect that both the Educator, and the learner were at the copy, and printing rooms, was similar. The incident was reported to Ms. Pakela, was similar. They were at the classroom of Ms. Pakela with other learner, was similar. The learner, and Educator were given an opportunity to state their side of the story before Ms. Pakela, was similar. The touching/bumping happened, was similar. What then appears to be in dispute is whether the incident occurred as alleged?
51. It is learner version that the Educator assisted her to look for an empty box. They went to the printing room to look for an empty box. The Educator said she must look under the table, but she did not find a box. The Educator further said that she must look behind the door, and it was when the Educator touched her buttocks. The Educator said that she must not tell anyone about the touching. It is the learner’s version she told her friend about the incident, and they both went to the classroom of Ms. Pakela to report it.
52. It is the Educator’s version that he accidentally or mistakenly bumped the learner at the corridor. It is Ms. Pakela’s undisputed evidence that the Educator told her that he accidentally touched the learner at the corridor, not at the copy room. The Educator was not charged for touching the buttocks of the learner at the corridor or printing room. He was charged for touching the learner’s buttocks without a consent. The Educator denied any conduct of an assault towards the learner. The question therefore becomes one of whose version should be believed.
53. It is a norm that a child who is sexually assaulted will forget some instances, and that because of the shock, and the status of the perpetrator. This alleged incident of sexual nature happened when learner was twelve (12) years old, and also her thinking ability as Grade 6 learner. In that regard, probabilities become a consideration in deciding whether sexual assault did occur. The testimonies of Ms. Pakela, and the learner corroborated to each other.
54. It is the learner’s aunt testimony that the Educator ask for forgiveness, and this testimony was confirmed by the Educator. The Educator further ask the Deputy-Principal, Mr. Kgosi to tell the learner’s family that he did not do it deliberately. If the Educator bumped the learner at the corridor mistakenly as alleged, why did he asked for forgiveness? What is that he has done that made him to ask for forgiveness? It does not make sense to ask for forgiveness because he experienced the similar situation at his home as he alleged.
55. The Educator is not a layperson to alleged that he does not understand the meaning of the word forgiveness. He understands exactly what he was saying when he asked for forgiveness. Why did he tell the learner’s aunt that if this matter proceeds, his side of the story would not be listened? If he did not do anything wrong to the learner, why did he follow her to Ms. Pakela’s classroom? The Employer’s witnesses were credible, and reliable, and provided honest testimonies, and their evidence should not be doubted. The Applicant’s evidence was not consistent, and not reliable. He fabricated his version to suit him, and was not forthcoming.
56. Is it probable that the Employer’s witnesses, especially, Ms. Pakela, who appeared to have no serious issues, or history of animosity towards the Educator, suddenly gang up against him without sufficient cause? Is it probable that their version is a mere fabrication? The answer, based on the evidence before me, is an emphatic “No”. It is highly unlikely that a learner, in the person of leaner, who previously had no issues whatsoever with the Educator, would suddenly claim that the Educator sexually assaulted her. There was no evidence presented by the Educator that he was aware of any reason, why the learner would make-up such a story.
57. I find the Employer to have proved the charge against the Educator. The Educator in the present proceedings has dismally failed to prove his innocent. I conclude that the Employer’s version was more probable to prove the Educator’s charge of guilt. Conclusion
58. Based on the above, I find that the Educator committed misconduct as per the main two charges in terms of sections 17(1)(b), and 18(1)(q) of the EEA. Sanction
59. Having found that the Educator did commit misconduct in terms of sections 17(1)(b), and 18(1)(q) of the EEA, the sanction of dismissal is mandatory. For the sake of completeness, I have also considered the total circumstances in order to decide whether dismissal would be a fair, and appropriate sanction if it were not mandatory. This kind of conduct is not acceptable within an educator, and learner context. Educators have a positive duty to ensure that learners are educated in a safe environment. Parents entrust their children for safe keeping at school.
60. Educators take the role, and responsibilities of parents while at school. Viewed against this background, the Educator’s conduct is viewed in an extremely serious light, and is in contradiction of relevant legislation. Legislation prohibits such conduct. I have particularly considered the EEA as well as the SACE Code of Professional Ethics for educators (South African Council for Educators, as intended in the South African Council for Educators Act, 31 of 2000). The protection of learners, and consideration of their interests is paramount, particularly as educators are leaders within the school environment as well as leaders within the community environment. Such conduct serves to destroy the relationship of trust between the Employer, and Educator.
61. 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 121 provides that where such a finding is made, the person against whom such a finding was made, may have the finding reviewed by a court of law. 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.
62. The Employer representative asked me to find that the Educator is automatically unfit to work with learners. In view of my finding of the serious nature of the Educator’s conduct, and the priority to protect the rights of children, I find that the Educator is unsuitable to work with children. The fact that there are no previous incidents on record, does not necessarily mean that her 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. Award
63. I find the Educator, Mr. Tebogo Anthony Moholo, guilty of the charges that preferred against him, and I, as a consequence, impose a sanction of a dismissal effective from 22 May 2025.
64. Mr. Tebogo Anthony Moholo is found unsuitable to work with children in terms of section 120(4) of the Act.
65. The General Secretary of the Council must, within 14 days of receipt of this award, report, or refer the award to the educators’ professional body, SACE.
66. The General Secretary of the Council 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 Act, that Mr. Tebogo Anthony Moholo is unsuitable to work with children, for the Director General to enter her name as contemplated in section 120 in part B of the register.
67. The Educator, Mr. Tebogo Anthony Moholo, has the right to take this award on review to the Labour Court as envisaged in Section 145 of the LRA, and to do so within the prescribed time-frame.

Signature: _________
Commissioner: Khuduga Tlale
Sector: Education