THE INQUIRY-BY-ARBITRATOR BETWEEN

THE HEAD OF DEPARTMENT
NORTHERN CAPE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION EMPLOYER

and

MR THAPELO EMMANUEL SEROLONG EMPLOYEE

Case No: ELRC775-25/26NC
Dates: 21 November and 11-12 December 2025
Venue: JTG District Office of the Department of Education, Kuruman

AWARD

DETAILS OF HEARING AND REPRESENTATION

1. This is an arbitration award in the disciplinary matter (Inquiry-By-Arbitrator) between the Head of Department: Northern Cape Department of Education (hereinafter ‘the employer’), and Mr Thapelo Emmanuel Serolong, ‘the employee’.
2. The Inquiry-By-Arbitrator (hereinafter ‘the Inquiry’) was scheduled for 21 November 2025 and 11-12 December 2025 at the John Taolo Gaetsewe District Offices of the employer in Kuruman. The applicant was in attendance at all sittings and unrepresented. The employer was represented by Mr Aone Leboko, its Labour Relations Assistant Director. The proceedings were digitally recorded, and Mr Robert Kwayi was the Interpreter. Ms Thiti Mokgwamme was the Intermediary.
3. The Inquiry was held under the auspices of the Education Labour Relations Council (hereinafter the Council), following section 188A of the Labour Relations Act (the LRA), read with Clause 32 of the Council’s Dispute Resolution Procedure and the Council’s Collective Agreement (Resolution 3 of 2018). The award is issued in accordance with Section 138(7) of the LRA.

ISSUE TO BE DECIDED

4. I am called upon to decide whether the employee misconducted himself, per the allegations levelled against him. If I find that he committed the misconduct(s), I must decide on an appropriate sanction.

BACKGROUND TO THE DISPUTE

5. It is common cause that the employer has employed the employee as a Contract Mathematics Educator, since 01 January 2025, and who was based at Robanyane Toto II Primary School in Batlharo, Kuruman. Following alleged acts of sexual misconduct in May and September 2025, the employee was suspended, and the employer requested this Inquiry with the Council.
6. The allegations levelled against the employee are as follows:

Count One (1)
It is alleged that on or about May 2025 to September 2025, at or near Batlharos in Kuruman, you committed an act of serious misconduct as contemplated in Section 17 (1) (c) of the Employment of Educators Act 76 of 1998, in that you, inter alia, engaged in a sexual relationship with a learner enrolled at the school where you are employed, while you knew or ought reasonably to have known that such conduct is strictly prohibited.

Count One (2)
It is alleged that during September 2025, at or near Batlharos in Kuruman, you committed an act of serious misconduct as contemplated in Section 17 (1) (d) of the Employment of Educators Act 76 of 1998, in that you, assaulted a learner with the intention to cause grievous bodily harm to a learner enrolled at the school where you are employed, while you knew or ought reasonably to have known that such conduct is strictly prohibited..

7. The employee pleaded not guilty to the charges. All of the employee’s rights were explained to him, and I was satisfied that the employee was capable of representing himself. Interlocutory applications and preliminary issues were considered and dealt with accordingly through ex tempore rulings.
8. For this award, the learners’ names shall be kept confidential. The learners who testified were all minors and were accompanied by their parents at the hearing venue.

SURVEY OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT

9. This section summarises the parties’ evidence and arguments. It is not intended to be exhaustive, but I have considered all submissions in reaching my conclusions.

Documentary and Real Evidence

10. The parties handed in the following documentary evidence:
    Employer: Bundle A
    Employee: None

Employer’s Case

11. Ms KF, a 13-year-old learner and in Grade 7 at the time of the alleged incidents, testified as the first witness for the respondent. She testified as to how the employee initiated a Facebook chat (real life conversation) with her, wherein the employee wanted to start a romantic relationship with her. Ms KF stated that she told the employee that she was too young to have a relationship with him. She stated that she understood that the employee wanted to make sexual advances to her. Ms KF testified that the employee also wanted to have a relationship with her peers, being RI and KD. She stated that the three of them decided to report the matter to the school’s office. Ms KF stated that her Facebook relationship with the employee took place between May and July 2025.
12. In cross-examination, Ms KF stated that her relationship with the employee was only on Facebook, with no exchange of emotions and no physical contact between them. She recalled an incident in which she sustained an injury during football practice, and the employee ensured that she was safely transported home and placed in the care of her mother, who also happened to meet the employee.
13. Ms RD, a fellow learner who was 12 years old and also in Grade 7 between May and September 2025, testified as the second witness for the respondent. She stated that she was in class and busy stapling her papers when she accidentally stepped on the employee’s foot, after which the employee took off his waist belt and hit her on her buttocks. Ms RD stated that the employee was harassing them and also touched her private parts. She said that after the employee beat her with the belt, she then left the class and went outside, sat and cried. Ms RD stated that one, Mr Olyn saw her and asked her what was going on, where after she replied that the employee hit her. She stated that the employee then came out and told her to return to the classroom.
14. In cross-examination, Ms RD stated that the employee did not physically touch her on her private parts but hit her with a belt on her buttocks. She admitted to not having seen a medical practitioner to prove that she was assaulted.
15. Mr Olyn, the Class Teacher for the Grade 7s, testified as the third witness for the employer. He testified that he was also called in to the principal’s office, where one of RI and KF alleged that the employee sent them text messages. Mr Olyn also confirmed a moment where he saw RD sitting outside a classroom and crying, and how RD told him about her request for a stapler, and how the employee decided to administer corporal punishment on her.
16. In cross-examination, Mr Olyn admitted to having no supporting evidence and that the employee told him that the learners were rude.
17. Ms RI, also 12 years old, and in Grade 7 during the period May to September 2025, testified as the fourth witness of the employer. She stated that the employee also wanted to pursue a relationship with her, which she refused and told the employee that she was underage. Ms RI confirmed that the employee was in a relationship with KF. She stated that the employee was unfair, in that the employee never beat K and P, but only them. Ms RI stated that they (RI, RD and KF) then decided to take steps against the employee, especially after the employee beat them with a belt.
18. In cross-examination, Ms RI stated that although the employee showed her signs of being in love with her, the employee never made any physical advances like kisses, hugs or love movements on her. She stated that the employee made advances toward her only on Facebook.
19. Ms KD, who was 14 years old and in Grade 7 during the same period, testified as the fifth witness for the employer. She testified with reference to the bundle of documents (the text message screenshots from Facebook) and confirmed that the employee pursued relationships with the other three (KF, RI and RD).

Employee’s Case

20. Mr Thapelo Emmanuel Serolong, the employee, testified as the first witness in his case. He stated that the learners have already confirmed that nothing sexual took place between him and them. The employee stated that he did not have a phone from April to August 2025 and that it was impossible for him to have made contact with the learners at that time. He stated that upon obtaining another phone, he discovered that his Facebook account had been hacked and immediately informed the learners thereof.
21. The employee referred to bank statements and transaction receipts to prove that he could not even meet the learners on weekends, as implied in the messages, because he was not in Kuruman but in Taung. He stated that his ex-girlfriend hacked his Facebook account and chatted with the learners pretending to be him, all in an effort to destroy him. The employee stated that he was entrusted with supervising learners both inside and outside the classroom and that he never posed a threat to them.
22. Ms Tswaraganang Refilwe Mohlomi ‘Ms Mohlomi’, the employee’s Ex-Girlfriend, testified as the second witness in the employee’s case. She testified that following her breakup with the employee, and after having damaged several cell phones of the employee, she decided to hack the employee’s Facebook account, in an attempt to cause the employee to lose his job. Ms Mohlomi testified that whilst going through the employee’s Facebook account, she saw several learners chatting with the employee about school work.
23. Ms Mohlomi testified that the employee found her in Rustenburg, where their relationship started, and where the employee caused her to move with him to Kuruman, just for the employee to start cheating on her with other women. She stated that she needed to retaliate against the employee by sending derogatory messages to the learners and impersonating the employee in an effort to ruin the employee’s career. Ms Mohlomi stated that she was the one who made relationship proposals to the learners via the employee’s Facebook account. She stated that although she proposed dates with the learners under the guise of being the employee, she did not follow through for fear of being exposed.
24. In cross-examination, Ms Mohlomi admitted with reference to the documentary evidence that she was the author of the chats, and that she and the employee stayed together after the breakup, until she found employment recently. She stated that she came forward to testify because she felt bad about the situation and that the employee risked losing his job.
25. Mr KO, also 13 years old and in Grade 7 at the time of the alleged incidents, testified as the third witness for the employee. He testified that the employer’s witnesses were spreading lies to the principal and everyone, in that the employee has never administered corporal punishment on any of them. Mr KO stated that there is no truth in the allegations that the employee beat learners with a belt in any class.
26. In cross-examination, Mr KO reiterated that that he was in the same class as KF, RI, RD and KD, and that those learners were disobeying the employee, who would just ignore them and continue with his work.
27. Mr TN, a 14-year-old Grade 7 learner, testified as the fourth witness in the employee’s case. He confirmed that the employee has never administered corporal punishment in the class, and that the four (KF, RI, RD and KD) wanted preferential treatment in class, which the employee refused to give. Mr TN stated that he had never seen the employee taking off his belt for anyone, and that the employee only reprimanded them for not doing their work.
28. In cross-examination, Mr TN denied that the employee caused them to do physical work like sweeping the classroom and denied having been intimidated or promising anything to bring this testimony.
29. Mr OS, a 13-year-old Grade 7 learner, testified as the last witness for the employee. He testified that the employee has always been good to them and had never mistreated anyone or beaten them up in class. In cross-examination, Mr OS stated that RI was lying and that no one compelled him and TN to testify in this manner.

ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT

30. I shall now proceed to determine the charges levelled against the employee, in light of the evidence led by the employer:

Count One (1)
It is alleged that on or about May 2025 to September 2025, at or near Batlharos in Kuruman, you committed an act of serious misconduct as contemplated in Section 17 (1) (c) of the Employment of Educators Act 76 of 1998, in that you, inter alia, engaged in a sexual relationship with a learner enrolled at the school where you are employed, while you knew or ought reasonably to have known that such conduct is strictly prohibited.

31. The evidence presented by the employer under this charge did not extinguish its burden of proving on a balance of probabilities that the employee has committed the alleged act. All of its learner witnesses (KF, RI, RD and KD) confirmed that no sexual and physical acts took place between them and the employee, and that the employee had never made any sexual advances to them in a physical manner.
32. The employer’s witnesses, to the exception of Mr Olyn, all testified that the only manner in which the employee tried to pursue a relationship with them was through a social media platform better known as Facebook, and that was where it ended. It is clear from the employer’s evidence that no sexual or attempted sexual acts were committed by the employee towards the learners so identified.
33. The employee’s key witness, Ms Mohlomi, admitted to having been the one who concocted and planted the evidence against the employee. Even if such Facebook chats constitute misconduct, the fact remains that Ms Mohlomi exonerated the employee from such allegations. I accept Ms Mohlomi’s evidence as credible and reliable, based on the demeanour and candour displayed at the Inquiry. There was also little which the employer could do to disprove her claims.
34. Based on the evidence provided by both parties, it is my finding that the employee has not committed the alleged acts of misconduct levelled against him under Count one (1).

Count One (2)
It is alleged that during the of September 2025, at or near Batlharos in Kuruman, you committed an act of serious misconduct as contemplated in Section 17 (1) (d) of the Employment of Educators Act 76 of 1998, in that you, assaulted a learner with an intention to cause grievous bodily harm to a learner enrolled at the school where you are employed, while you knew or ought reasonably to have known that such conduct is strictly prohibited..

35. As for this charge, three witnesses of the employer (KF, RI and RD) claim to have been beaten up by the employee, using his waist belt. One of them, RI, even claimed to have walked out of the class, gone outside, sat, and cried until Mr Olyn came down on her. It is important to note that Mr Olyn is not an eyewitness, but a witness who was told what happened in the class. KD was also told what happened, and did not witness the incidents directly, even though she was in class. I find this quite strange.
36. Interestingly, the employee’s three witnesses managed to contrast the testimonies of KF, RI and RD. KO, TN and OS testified the exact opposite of what the three female learners of the employer testified. These three male learners placed under oath evidence before me that the three female learners were lying to the principal and to me. They corroborated the employee’s version that the employee never administered corporal punishment to anyone.
37. As for the three female learners, neither KD nor Mr Olyn gave direct evidence to corroborate their version. Based on these complexities, I am inclined to favour the employee’s version and find it more probable. All of these child witnesses were assessed by the Intermediary, who declared them fit for examinations, in the presence of their parents and guardians.
38. The employer did not contest the employee witnesses’ version that the three female learners rebelled against the employee for refusing to give them preferential treatment. This, by itself, shows that the female learners may have had a motive to prejudice the employee, especially after the Facebook account hacking incidents, which created an opportunity to target the employee.
39. I find that the alleged corporal punishment incidents would probably not have been reported had the staged encounter on the employees Facebook account not arisen.

VERDICT

40. I find the employee not guilty on both charges.
41. In the premises, I hereby make the following award:

AWARD

42. The case of the employer, Head of Department: Northern Cape Department of Education, against the employee, Mr Thapelo Emmanuel Serolong, is hereby dismissed.

This is done and dated on 19 January 2026, at Kimberley.

David Pietersen
ELRC COMMISSIONER
Inquiry-By-Arbitrator