EDUCATION LABOUR
RELATIONS COUNCIL

ARBITRATION AWARD

Case Number: ELRC996-25-26WC
Commissioner: E Maree
Date of Award: 29 April 2026

In the ARBITRATION between

NAPTOSA obo Ishmael Ceres
(Applicant/s)

And

Department of Education-Western Cape

(Respondent)

Details of hearing and representation

1. The arbitration regarding an alleged unfair dismissal, referred in terms of section 191 of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (as amended), the ‘’LRA’’ commenced on 13 February 2026 and was concluded on 8 April 2026. It was conducted via ZOOM/TEAMS.
2. The applicant was represented by Mr. F. Tassiem an official from NAPTOSA, while the respondent was represented by Mrs. V. Phillips, the Senior Labour Relations Specialist.
3. The arbitration was electronically recorded, and handwritten notes were taken. At the conclusion of the arbitration, the parties have agreed to submit written closing arguments on/before 24 April 2026. Both parties duly complied.

Issues to be decided

4. I must determine if the dismissal of the applicant was substantively fair and to determine appropriate relief in the event of a finding of unfairness.
5. The applicant disputed the contravention of the workplace rules.

Background to the dispute

6. The applicant was dismissed subsequent to a disciplinary hearing which was confirmed on appeal on 11 November 2025 on charges of misconduct.
7. The applicant was employed as educator for a period or 32 years and at the time of his dismissal was the Deputy Principal at Grassy Park High a position he had filled for 16 years.
8. The applicant seeks reinstatement.
9. The respondent’s bundle of documents was not placed in dispute.
10. Common cause and disputed issues were determined at the outset of the arbitration.

Survey of evidence and argument

The LRA requires that brief reasons be given in an award, therefore the following is a summary of the relevant evidence given under oath and submissions made in argument all of which is not reflected in this award but had nevertheless been taken into account.

Respondent’s evidence

11. The respondent called four (4) witnesses in order to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the dismissal was substantively fair.
12. The first witness Mrs. Zolfa Ryklief testified that she commenced employment during March 2023 as a project general assistant and reported to the applicant who was in charge of the project that ended after six months.
13. She testified that she was then approached by the Principal Mrs Chapman to assist as invigilator during the matric examination and the following year she was offered a SGB post as general cleaner by Mrs Chapman to whom she reported. They had a professional relationship and would drink coffee ‘’sometimes during lunch’’. She also had a professional relationship later with the then acting Principal Ms. Dolly.
14. According to Mrs. Ryklief during the matric examination in 2023 when she was an invigilator, they searched the matrics and the applicant asked her why SAPS was at the school and she told him that she was not sure but that it might have to do with the learners. He asked her why they were not there for the educators and she told him she ‘’does not know’’. He told her ‘’we can gossip’’ and told her that at school he was ‘Mr. Ceres but outside school he was Ishmael’’. He also said to her ‘ I am a very jas person’. She did not respond to his comments and called him Mr Ceres as they had a professional relationship. They only interacted at school and never outside school hours and due to this his remarks ‘’did not feel good’’. The meaning of ‘jas’’ can refer to a coat or have a sexual meaning which was the way the applicant meant it due to the way he said it and the looks he gave her.
15. Mrs Ryklief testified that the applicant asked her to message him and she asked ‘’why’’. He kept asking her on a daily basis to message him and in order to get rid of him, she said she would message him. She asked him why she had to message him as there was no reason to and as they talk during school hours. He never answered her but just laughed/smiled.
16. According to Mrs Ryklief she walked away as she felt uncomfortable due to the way he was looking at her. She started being scared and no-one at school looked at her the way the applicant did. The way he looked at her ‘’was sexual’’ and it looked at as if he was undressing her. She always respected the applicant but due to his conduct, she has lost her respect for him and avoided him. She had also reported the incidents to the then Principal Mrs Johnson and Mrs Dolly (currently the acting Principal) and later to Mrs. Chapman. Page 15 reflects what app message between her and the applicant who obtained her number as they share a whats app group. She never gave him her number. The incidents affected her emotionally and she never wanted’’ such to happen.
17. The second witness, Mrs. Nawal Dollie testified that had been the acting Principal since 1 April 2024 and was the HOD. She knows Mrs. Ryklief who had reported to her since 2023 as a soft-spoken, respectful person who does not involve herself in ‘other peoples business’.
18. Mrs Dollie submitted that Mrs Ryklief (whom she believe and who was very emotional ) reported to her that the applicant said to her she could gossip with him ( this was on the day there was a police raid at the school) and also said that she had a job due to him. The applicant also told Mrs Ryklief to call him ‘Mr. Ceres’’ at school but ‘’Ishmael’’ outside school. Mrs Ryklief also told her that the applicant asked her to message him and told her he is ‘’a jus person’’ which means ‘’uitgelate’’. The applicant also asked her to call him ‘’Ismael’’ outside the school.
19. Mrs Dollie testified that she told Mrs Ryklief that she would report the matter to the principal but Mrs. Ryklief said ‘’not now’’.
20. According to Mrs Dollie she had worked with the applicant since 2011 and their working relationship was ‘’reasonably well’’ at the outset but later ‘’was not good’’. He had an issue with her uncle who worked at the school and was of the belief that she orchestrate his employment when in fact, he started at the school before she did. The applicant also had issues with the previous principal (Johnson).
21. Mrs Dollie submitted that the applicant said to her ‘’come home with me’’ that she thought at first was a joke. Later when they were invigilators. He told her ‘’I will not stop until you come with me’’. She reported this to her husband, deputy principal, colleagues and Naptosa as she saw this utterance as an invitation for sexual interaction.
22. The third witness Mrs. Angela Johnson testified that she had been a general assistant at the school for 6 years and Mrs. Ryklief, (who is quiet, trustworthy and not loud or vulgar, is her colleague.
23. Mrs Johnson submitted that during November when the matrics were writing examinations, she overheard the applicant saying to Mrs Ryklief ‘’you are old work’’ which means that a young girl is sleeping around. Mrs Ryklief was uncomfortable and he looked at her ‘’lustful’’. Mrs Ryklief told her that the applicant asked her to message him, said to her he is ‘’a jus person’’ and to call him Ismael outside school. She believed her as she was crying and also said ‘’why does he say this to me, what did I do wrong, he knows I am married’’.
24. In conclusion Mrs Johnson stated that the applicant said to her and a colleague ‘’ek wax my hol hare, ek hou nie van hol hare nie’’.
25. The fourth witness, Mrs. Liane Bathgate testified that she is the Deputy Director and manages grievances, misconduct and other disputes at the district and head office. All misconduct allegations are reported to her and she distributes such to officials.
26. Mrs. Bathgate submitted that the applicant had previously faces allegations of misconduct that led to three plea bargains based on similar charges of misconduct relating to learners. The current charges involved adult but also entail sexual innuendos.
27. Regarding consistency Mrs. Bathgate testified that allegations of misconduct was levelled against Mr. Mehl an acting deputing principal during May 2024. The matter was still being investigated when he retired on 13 June 2024. Due to this disciplinary action could not be instituted but had was blocked on persal and the matter was referred to SACE in order to remove his registration as educator and to prevent employment as educator.
28. Mrs. Bathgate stated that they previously interacted in issues between the applicant and the previous principal Mrs. Shirley Chapman. If a principal fail to reported allegations made against an educator he/she will be charged. She does not belief that the principal targeted the applicant.
29. In conclusion Mrs. Bathgate testified that the applicant was given an opportunity to rehabilitate when the plea bargains were made. He however, failed to do so, and again committed misconduct that ultimately led to his dismissal. The applicant might ‘’regret’’ his actions but he is not remorseful. If he was remorseful, he would have rehabilitated himself and not continue committing misconduct.

Applicant’s evidence

30. The applicant Mr. Ismael Ceres testified that he signed the previous plea bargains as he ‘’was scared and nervous to be at a hearing’’. It ‘’was scary’ to be at the office of the director and he had cried the one time he was there. The union official told him, ‘take what is on the table’’. He ‘’did not know it would build up to a dismissal’’.
31. According to Mr. Ceres it ‘’was nerve wrecking’’ to visit the department regarding allegations made against him and he asked himself ‘’what will happen to me’’. He signed the plea bargains ‘’to get out’/
32. Mr Ceres submitted that the relationship between him and the department ‘’can be mended if this is allowed’’. He wanted to build relationships and greeted the principal every morning and accepted her as principal. During 2021 he submitted a grievance with the circuit manager as the principal removed his duties. There was then a meeting between them and the department indicated he must do his duties. He also attended about six sessions of management referral that revolved around better communication, team work, and it ‘’was good’’ to talk about some of his challenges.
33. Regarding the allegations made by Mrs. Ryklief, it was testified that the environment at the school is designed in such a way that the ground employees are close to the principal and the two ground employees were at the principal’s offices on a daily basis and were ‘’her ears’’ resulting in them not doing their duties. All the allegations against him are fabricated, made up and not true. He only interacted with Mrs Ryklief regarding her duties but this was taken away by the principal. Mrs Ryklief approached him as she wanted his assistance in order to complete her matric. He never messaged her and they did not interact outside school and page 15 does not show his name or number. The evidence of Mrs Dolly is also not true. He is also ‘’dumbstruck’’ by the allegation that he used the word ‘’ou werk’’. He does not know such expression/word and does not know that it means ‘’sleeping around’’. He does not know how, where and when could he have said this in a class that is on the top floor in a corner.
34. Mr Ceres stated that he can coach learners in sport, has a lot to offer in the school community and is good in the subjects that the taught. He has studied for 12 years and during his previous 15 years at another school, there were no allegations against him.
35. According to Mr. Ceres he has remorse for ‘’all that happened’’. He was frustrated with the principal who removed his duties and does not know why she targeted him. He is to be given another change. He is also ‘’surprised’’ by the evidence of Mrs Dolly that he ‘’lured’’ her to his house, while he ‘respected and admired’’ her. He is not wanted at school as he was to be given the post of HOD, previously held by Mrs Dolly who is currently the acting principal. Mrs Dolly’s uncle is an unqualified SGB educator and teaches Grade 12 learners. He is seen as a threat

Analysis of evidence and Arguments

36. Section 192(1] of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 as amended (LRA) places the onus on an applicant to establish the existence of the dismissal, which in this matter was common cause as was the procedural fairness thereof.
37. Section 192(2) requires that the respondent must prove that the dismissal was substantively fair.
38. In order to determine if dismissal was for a fair reason and effected in accordance with a fair procedure, regard must be had to schedule The Code of Good Practice: Dismissal (Part D) paragraphs 6-11. Paragraph 8 states as follows:

“Any person who is determining whether a dismissal for misconduct is unfair should consider –

(a) Whether or not the employee contravened a rule or standard regulating conduct in, or of relevance to, the workplace; and

(b) if a rule or standard was contravened whether or not-
(i) the rule was a valid or reasonable rule or standard;

(ii) the employee was aware, or could reasonably be expected to have been aware of the rule or standard;

(iii)] the rule or standard has been consistently applied by the employer and;

(iv) dismissal was an appropriate sanction for the contravention of the rule or standard. “

39. The applicant was charged in terms of section 18 (1) (q) of the Employment of Educators, Act 76 of 1998 as amended. The charge reads as follows:

‘’ It is alleged that you are guilty of misconduct terms of section 18 (1) (q) of the Employment of Educators, Act 76 of 1998 in that during November 2023 while on duty, you conducted yourself in an improper, disgraceful or unacceptable manner towards Mrs. Z. Ryklief a general assistant at Grassy Park High School by making the following or similar utterances to her

i) ‘’When are you going to message me and/or
ii) ‘’At school I am Mr Ceres but outside the school, I am Ismael’’ and/or
iii) I am a jus person and you must message me’’

40. The existence of the rule/s as contained in the Act were not disputed by the applicant. The substantive issues to be dealt with are contained in item 8(7) (a) as he claimed he was not guilty of any misconduct and that the respondent acted inconsistently in that Mr Mehl ‘’was not charged but was asked to leave’’ (item 8(7)(iii). The remainder of the substantive issues (item 8(7) (b) (i, ii and iv) were not placed in dispute.
41. The respondent thus had to prove, on a preponderance of probabilities that the workplace rules were contravened and that they acted consistently.
42. Mrs Ryklief rendered evidence regarding the utterances as stated in the allegation (paragraph 40 supra) , made towards her by the applicant. Her evidence was corroborated by that of Mrs. Dollie and Mrs Johnson to whom she had relayed her experiences. These two witnesses also testified about their own encounters with the applicant relaying words uttered towards them and others (paragraphs 21, 23 and 24) I do not intend to dwell on these, as the applicant was not charged with these utterances. It does however, show an unacceptable and continuous pattern of behaviour. This behaviour also ties in with previous behaviour that were similar and/or the same where the applicant signed plea bargain agreements with the respondent.
43. The witnesses were subjected to cross-examination that failed to destroy the probability of their versions or their credibility.
44. The applicant’s version amounts to a bare denial. He testified that allegations are fabricated, made up and not true. He also stated that the principal was ‘’out to get him’’ and that Mrs. Dollie saw him as a threat. The latter refers to the fact that if not for the dismissal he would have been appointed as HOD and would have exposed the fact that the uncle of Mrs Dollie was an unqualified SGB educator, teaching Grade 12 learners.
45. During cross-examination, the applicant elaborated on his view as to why he was accused/ charged with misconduct. He reiterated that it was all due to the principal who was also instrumental in influencing around 10 other individuals that included learners, teachers and parents to fabricate allegations against him, hence the previous allegations levelled against him. He stated that she ‘’guided, directed and documented all of this’’. when asked he stated that he would not call these individuals to testify to this on his behalf as he ‘’has no contact with them, did not engage with and does not know if they will testify’’.
46. The applicant made serious allegations not only against the principal but also against 10 other individuals who were involved in the other allegations levelled against him and that led to three plea bargain deals. He was at all times represented by Naptosa officials who could have assisted in securing their presence at this arbitration hearing in order to prove that all the evidence was concocted and that he was the victim of a massive plot/conspiracy.
47. The applicant’s bare denial in the face of overwhelming evidence rendered on behalf of the respondent did not serve him well. He failed to impress and came across as a person who has no insight into his wrong doing and as such showed no remorse. Thie lack of remorse was also illustrated by his evidence that everything a concocted plot against him.
48. It was argued in closing (reflected verbatim) on behalf of the applicant by Mr. Tassiem that

‘’The alleged utterances, even if accepted, do not constitute misconduct of a serious nature.

• There were no sexual remarks,
• No inappropriate messages,
• No physical conduct.

While Ms Ryklief testified that she felt uncomfortable, this cannot on its own sustain a finding of misconduct.

The employer’s case is largely uncorroborated.
• Mr Ceres provided a plausible explanation.

49. The applicant did not provide a plausible explanation but a bare denial bolstered by his allegations of a plot against him.
50. The allegations were indeed serious and does not have to constitute sexual remarks to be serious. It was however, testified by Mrs. Ryklief that the remarks made her feel uncomfortable and that the way he looked at her (as if he was undressing her) linked to the use of the word ‘’jas/jus’’ conveyed a sexual meaning.
51. The respondent had the onus to prove the allegation against him, on a preponderance of probabilities. This they succeeded in doing.
52. Did the respondent act consistently?
53. It was stated on behalf of the applicant that Mr. Mehl was not charged for the same/similar conduct but that the respondent ‘’asked him to leave’’
54. Mrs. Bathgate the Deputy Director who manages grievances, misconduct and other disputes at the district and head office submitted that all misconduct allegations are reported to her and she distributes such to officials.
55. She submitted that allegations of misconduct were levelled against Mr. Mehl an acting deputing principal during May 2024. The matter was still being investigated when he retired on 13 June 2024. Due to this disciplinary action could not be instituted but had was blocked on persal and the matter was referred to SACE in order to remove his registration as educator and to prevent employment as educator.
56. During cross-examination it was put to Mrs Bathgate that ‘’we accept your evidence on this’’.
57. It would same time and resources if representatives, before raising issues, attempted to establish the true nature of events especially as they have access to officials of the respondent.
58. I thus accept that the issue of consistency in the face of the above was abandoned.
59. Was the sanction of dismissal appropriate?
60. In Sidumo v Rustenburg Platinum Mines Ltd & Others (2007) 28 ILJ 2405 (CC) the court stated as follows in paragraphs 78 & 79:

(78) In approaching the dismissal dispute impartially, a commissioner will take into account the totality of circumstances. He or she will necessarily take into account the importance of the rule that had been breached. The commissioner must of course consider the reason the employer imposed the sanction of dismissal, as he or she must take into account the basis of the employee’s challenge to the dismissal. There are other factors that will require consideration. For example, the harm caused by the employee’s conduct, whether additional training and instruction may result in the employee not repeating the misconduct, the effect of dismissal on the employee and his or her long service record. This is not an exhaustive list.

(79) To sum up. ’In terms of the LRA a commissioner has to determine whether a dismissal is fair or not. A commissioner is not given the power to consider afresh what he or she would do, but simply to decide whether what the employer did was fair. In arriving at a decision, a commissioner is not required to defer to the decision of the employer. What is required is that he or she must consider all relevant circumstances’’.

61. In Department of Home Affairs and another v Ndlovu and others (2014) ILJ 3340 (LAC) it was held that in order to proof that the sanction of dismissal was appropriate the employer must provide evidence of the breakdown in the trust relationship and thus that an ongoing work relationship was not possible. Such evidence is not necessary where the breakdown is apparent from the nature of the offence and or the circumstances.
62. The applicant was charged with contravening section 18(1) (q) of the Educators Act that reads as follows:

‘’ Misconduct.—(1) Misconduct refers to a breakdown in the employment relationship and an educator commits misconduct if he or she—

(q) while on duty, conducts himself or herself in an improper, disgraceful or unacceptable manner’’

63. The nature of the allegations was that the applicant acted in an improper, disgraceful or unacceptable manner towards Mrs. Z. Ryklief a general assistant at Grassy Park High School by making the following or similar utterances to her:

i) ‘’When are you going to message me and/or
ii) ‘’At school I am Mr Ceres but outside the school, I am Ismael’’ and/or
iii) I am a jus person and you must message me’’

64. Mrs Ryklief gave succinct evidence regarding these utterances ( also confirmed by witnesses to whom this was relayed) as well as her reaction towards such. Evidence was led that she could not understand why the applicant acted in this fashion as she was married. She also questioned herself as to why he thought that he could make these utterances towards her, asking herself ‘’what did I do wrong”. Mrs Ryklief became emotional when testifying, showing the impact these utterances had on her.
65. The actions of the applicant/words he uttered indeed amounts to conducting himself ‘’ while on duty in an improper, disgraceful or unacceptable manner’’.
66. The applicant who had been an educator for 32 years of which the last 16 years was as HOD, had a duty to act in the best interest of the respondent, Grassy Park High School, the learners entrusted to his care as well as his colleagues. He had to be a shining example of integrity and conscientious. This he sadly was not.
67. As senior educator and HOD the conduct expected from the applicant must be above reproach.
68. The applicant failed to comply with rules. He showed no remorse for his actions but blamed others by stating that there was a plot against him and even went to so far as to claim that at least 10 individuals were influenced by the Principal to render false claims/accusations against him. He also stated that allegations were fabricated to prevent him from being appointed as Deputy Principal and to expose the uncle of Mrs Dollie who is not qualified to teach Grade 12 learners.
69. The importance of rules in the workplaces regulating conduct to ensure that the administration, discipline or efficiency of the respondent is not prejudiced speaks for itself. So does the rule that requires proper and acceptable conduct.
70. The more concerning issue in deciding if the sanction of dismissal was appropriate is the applicant’s previous record. He had signed three plea bargains and thus accepted his guilt on the allegations levelled against him. These plea bargains were part of the respondent’s bundle and showed the allegations as well as the acceptance of the applicant that by signing such he accepted his actions as wrong and signed such of his own free will. He was at all times represented by NAPTOSA.
71. During arbitration the applicant claimed he signed such as he ‘’was nervous and scared’’ as he had never attended a hearing. He also stated that he signed the plea agreements ‘’to get out’’. He also testified that he was under the impression that by signing this, his record would be clear after the expiration of the period of the sanctions imposed.
72. In Gcwensha v CCMA and others ( 2006) 27 ILJ (LAC) it was held that a final written warning is not a requirement for dismissal and that the employer was entitled to take into account the cumulative effects of acts of negligence, inefficiency and/or misconduct. To hold otherwise would be to open an employer to the duty to continue employing an employee who commits a series of transgressions at suitable intervals falling outside the period of applicability of final written warnings. An employee’s duties include the careful execution of duties and a continuous and repeated breach of such duty is in breach of contractual obligations and can be dismissed in appropriate circumstances.
73. In Dorrainn Bayliff Investments ( Pty) Ltd v CCMA and others (2016) ZALAC 29 (handed down on 26 May 2016) the Court held that by finding that a dismissal was substantively unfair and having ordered compensation, a Commissioner failed to have regard to the cumulative effect of previous final written warnings (albeit lapsed).
74. As stated ( paragraph 71 supra) the applicant had a disciplinary record. It is appropriate for purposes of this award to list these:

74.1. On 5 March 2020 the applicant was sanctioned to a final written warning and a sanction of half a month’s salary for sending inappropriate sexual remarks to Ms R Petersen, a former matric student.
74.2. On 2 December 2020, the applicant was sanctioned to a final written warning, three months suspension without pay and a managerial referral to the Employee Health and Wellness Programme. This sanction was for making inappropriate sexual remarks to two Educators.
74.3. On 23 March 2023, the applicant was sanctioned to a final written warning, three months suspension without pay and a managerial referral to the Employee Health and Wellness Programme.

75. It also needs mentioning that at the time of the hearing on the charge that led to his dismissal ( relating to the incident during November 2023) the applicant again was charged with misconduct for an incident that allegedly occurred on 7 August 2024 in that he allegedly touched the thigh of a Grade 10 learner, pushed her against a wall and /or held her hand in an attempt to forcefully confiscates phones from her.
76. It seems that the applicant failed to reflect on his actions following the plea agreements and instead persisted with his acts of misconduct maybe to quote him as ‘’I thought it would go away’’. It seems that the applicant was of the view that as soon as the sanction/s he agreed to expired he was free to again misconduct himself as he would have a clean record. The error of his view was dealt with in the cases quoted ( paragraphs 73 and 74 supra).
77. This shows also not only his failure to heed progressive discipline, to reflect on the wrongness of his conduct but also to show remorse.
78. Mrs Phillips raised the following in closing on behalf of the respondent. I deem it important to reflect this verbatim:
    ‘’Violence against woman, children and vulnerable persons and harassment of any form should and cannot be condoned, in particular at schools. This is an escalating problem, which must be dealt with in the strictest terms where there is no room to justify such behaviour and afford second chances. A single incident is enough to terminate the employment relationship.

Perpetrators of sexual abuse and harassment torment our streets, our homes, and our schools. The psychologic impact to victims is dire when faced with such an infringement of rights and such behaviour cannot easily be mitigated against.

The Applicant cannot be given another opportunity to abuse a staff member. The Respondent cannot reasonably be expected to take this risk again. We have a responsibility to all staff members and a strong message must be sent out that this kind of behaviour will not be tolerated. Ultimately, the Applicant has been an employee of the WCED for 30 years and it is expected of him to know that making the following or similar utterances to a colleague is inappropriate and cannot be condoned noting his propensity to commit similar misconduct.

The deciding question in this matter is therefore whether the employer is contending that the trust relationship is irretrievably broken down? In answering the question, it should be noted that in a contract of employment and conditions of employment there is an implied mutual trust and confidence between the employer and employee. Consequently, the employer is entitled to terminate the employment contract should the employee have clearly behaved in a way which is contrary to the mutual trust which ought to exist between the employer and employee. The relationship of trust, mutual confidence and respect is the essence of the employment agreement, which under the circumstances cannot continue.
In deciding on an appropriate sanction consideration should also be given to ‘Regret’ and ‘Remorse’, but they are quite different concepts, which should not be confused. In this instance and noting the record of misconduct, the Applicant has absolutely no remorse for his actions. Before a court or tribunal can find that an accused person is genuinely remorseful, “it needs to have a proper appreciation of, inter alia: what motivated the accused to commit the deed; what has since provoked his or her change of heart; and whether he or she does indeed have a true appreciation of the consequences of those actions”.

79. Mr. Tassiem argued on behalf of the applicant that the failure to call the Principal to testify about the breakdown of trust ‘’is fatal to the employer’s case on sanction’’ . He also argued that ‘’the employer has improperly attempted to use past conduct to bolster a weak case on the merits.
80. I do not agree with this contention for the reasons stated (paragraphs 60-78 (supra).
81. In considering the totality of circumstance, the quoted cases, evidence presented and arguments raised, it is my view that the applicant is guilty of the charge levelled against him and I am satisfied that the sanction of dismissal was appropriate.

Award

82. I therefore make the following award: The dismissal of the applicant was substantively fair.
    The case is dismissed.

Dated and signed at Pretoria on 29 April 2026.

Council Commissioner