Panellist: Themba Manganyi
Case No.: ELRC852-24/25GP
Dates of Hearing: 29 July 2025, 11 September 2025,
04 November 2025 and 05 December 2025
Date of Arguments: 17 December 2025
Date of Award: 19 January 2026

In the Inquiry by Arbitrator Hearing between

HEAD OF DEPARTMENT: GAUTENG DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION EMPLOYER

and

MR PETER J WILLIAMS EMPLOYEE

Details of hearing and representation

1. This is an arbitration award issued in terms of section 138(7) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (“the LRA”), as amended, emanating from section 188A of the LRA proceedings conducted under the auspices of the Education Labour Relations Council (“the Council”).
2. The Employer is the Head of Department: Gauteng Department of Education and the Employee is Mr Peter Williams (“Mr Williams”). Ms Molebogeng Delman (“Ms Delman”), the Labour Relation Officer, represented the Employer and Ms Rozanne Visagie (“Ms Visagie”), a NAPTOSA Official, represented the Employee. Mr Marvin Seale and Ms Edna Shibisi assisted with the services of interpretation and intermediary, respectively.
3. The proceedings were conducted on 29 July 2025, 11 September 2025. 04 November 2025 and 09 December 2025. Parties were allowed to call and cross examine witnesses. Please note that the names of minor witnesses are concealed in this award to protect their identity. Parties relied only on the Employer’s bundle. At the end of the proceedings, parties requested to submit their heads of arguments in writing on or before 17 December 2025 and they duly complied, but I only received the Employer’s heads of arguments on 08 January 2026. The proceedings were recorded and the recordings thereof were retained by the Council.

Issue to be determined

4. I am required to determine whether Mr Williams misconducted himself as alleged.

Rights and the procedure

5. The rights of the Employee were read out and he confirmed that he was afforded all his rights. I also explained the process that will be followed in these proceedings.
   Allegations
6. The Employee was called upon to respond to the following allegations:

Allegation 1
It is alleged that on / or around 2024 school third term while in class during the Creative Arts period, you committed an act of sexual assault on a Grade 7 learner, Learner MRM, by touching her bums and her vagina.

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

Allegation 2
It is alleged that on / or around 2024 school third term while in class during the Creative Art period, you conducted yourself in an improper, disgraceful or unacceptable manner in that you sexually harassed a Grade 7 learner, Learner OM, by touching his bums and kissing him on his cheeks.

In view of the above, you are thus charged with misconduct in terms of section 18(1)(q) of the Employment of Educators Act 76 of 1998, as amended.

Allegation 3
It is alleged that on / or around 03 September 2024 while in class during the Creative Arts period, you conducted yourself in an improper, disgraceful or unacceptable manner in that you sexually harassed a Grade 7 learner, Learner TM, by touching her bums.

In view of the above, you are thus charged with misconduct in terms of section 18(1)(q) of the Employment of Educators Act 76 of 1998, as amended.

Allegation 4
It is alleged that on / or around 2024 school third term while in class during the Creative Arts period, you conducted yourself in an improper, disgraceful or unacceptable manner in that you sexually harassed a Grade 7 learner, Learner OM, by touching his bums and remarked that his bums are soft.
In view of the above, you are thus charged with misconduct in terms of section 18(1)(q) of the Employment of Educators Act 76 of 1998, as amended.

Pleadings

7. The Employee entered a NOT GUILTY plea to all the charges.

Survey of evidence and arguments

The Employer’s case

8. Learner MRM testified under oath and stated that she was fourteen (14) years old and was in Grade 7B in the year 2024. She testified that Mr Williams was a bubbly teacher and he always touched her bums and private parts. She stated that when she told Mr Williams that she did not like what he was doing and he would say that he was her father at school and he could do whatever he liked. She stopped wearing skirts, because when she wore a skirt, Mr Williams would make funny sounds. When she told him that she would report her, he said that no one will believe her. She stated that she and other learners reported Mr Williams to Mr Selokela. However, Mr Selokela said that it was not possible for Mr Williams to do the things that they alleged that he did. She eventually told her mother after the parents’ meeting.
9. She confirmed that she knew Learner OM as they were in the same class. She testified that she saw Mr Williams touching Learner OM’s bums and tried to kiss Learner OM on his cheeks. Learner OM started becoming aggressive and he wanted to hit Mr Williams. Learner OM started bunking classes. She stated that she heard Mr Williams saying to Learner OM that his bums were soft. She stated that Mr Williams touched Learner KD’s bums and Learner KD started bunking classes.
10. Under cross-examination, she stated that Mr Williams touched her almost every day during the Creative Arts period. She stated that Mr Williams touched her in front of the class or at the door or next to his table. She stated that she did not scream or shout when Mr Williams touched her, but she was angry and when she asked him what was he doing, he would say sorry, it was a mistake and he would laugh afterwards. She reiterated that she saw Mr Williams touching Learner OM in class. She disputed that she bunked Mr Williams’ class and stated that she thought about bunking, but she did not as she was scared of her mother.
11. Learner OM testified under oath and stated that he was in Grade 7B in the year 2024. He stated that they were in class when Mr Williams hit her bums and tried to kiss him on his cheek and Mr Williams said that his bums were soft. He testified that he was angry and he felt like leaving the school and not come back. He stated that he did not report Mr Williams because he thought that people would not believe him as he liked to make jokes. He testified that he saw Mr Williams touching Learner MRM on her bums, but he did not see Mr Williams touching her on her vagina.
12. Under cross-examination, he stated that he was busy erasing the chalkboard when Mr Williams tried to kiss him on his left cheek. He pushed Mr Williams and ran away. He stated that he did not report Mr Williams because they will think that he (Learner OM) was joking. He submitted that he was not making up a story. He stated that he did not know anything about the parents’ meeting.
13. Learner KD testified under oath and stated that he was 13 years old and that Mr Williams taught him Creative Arts in Grade 7. He stated that he did not know about Mr Williams touching Learner MRM on her vagina. He only saw Mr Williams touching Learner MRM on her bums in class. He testified that he saw Mr Williams touching Learner OM’s bums and saying that Learner OM’s bums were soft. He did not witness Mr Williams trying to kiss Learner OM.
14. Under cross-examination, he confirmed that Mr Williams was a bubbly teacher in class. He confirmed that he saw Mr Williams touching Learner MRM’s bums next to his (Mr Williams) table. He stated that he sat in front in class next to the chalkboard and he restated that he saw Mr Williams touching Learner OM’s bums, but he did not see Mr Williams trying kiss Learner OM. He also did not hear Mr Williams saying that Learner OM’s bums were soft. He confirmed that Learner OM liked to joke. He stated that he did not report Mr Williams because when it happened, he did not take it serious. He only took it serious when Ms Nombeko Ramoitheki (“Ms Ramoitheki”) told them to write about how Mr Williams treated them and what kind of an Educator he was. He stated that he wrote that Mr Williams was a good and normal teacher, but he touched his private parts. He confirmed that he knew about the parents’ meeting and that his parents attended the meeting.
15. Learner TM testified under oath and stated that he was 13 years old and that she was in Grade 7A in the year 2024. She testified that she was in class and she went to ask her friend something, but her friend was busy. When she went back to her desk, Mr Williams touched her bums. She stated that her other friend (Learner IG) saw Mr Williams when he touched her. Her friend said that they must go and report to Ms Ramoitheki. They reported to Ms Ramoitheki the following day because on the day of the incident she felt panicky and confused. Ms Ramoitheki reported the incident to the Principal.
16. Under cross-examination, she stated that Mr Williams touched her right bum when she was next to his desk. She stated that she did not scream because she panicked when he touched her. She stated that Learners MRM, OM and KD were not in her class and that they were in Grade 7B. She confirmed that Mr Williams was a bubbly person. She confirmed that she knew about the parents’ meeting, but she did not know what was discussed. She refuted the version that she bunked Mr Williams’ class. She stated that Ms Ramoitheki told them to write their statements regarding their incidents, but she did not know what happened to their statements.
17. Learner IG testified under oath and stated she was 14 years old. She stated that she knew Learner TM and that she saw Mr Williams when he touched Learner TM on her bums. She stated that Learner TM was next to the chalkboard when Mr Williams touched her. She stated that she went with Learner TM to Ms Ramoitheki the following day to report the incident. They reported to Ms Ramoitheki because they trusted her.
18. Under cross-examination, she stated that when Mr Williams touched Learner TM on her bums, she (Learner IG) was standing next to the door. She stated that she did not know about the parents’ meeting. She stated that Learner TM was shocked after Mr Williams touched her. She confirmed that they reported the incident to Ms Ramoitheki the following day after the incident. She confirmed that she also wrote a statement concerning the incident. She submitted that Mr Williams has never touched her. She refuted that they were told by someone to make up stories about Mr Williams.
19. Learner BM testified under oath and stated that she was 14 years old and she confirmed that she knew Learner MRM and that they were classmates when they were in Grade 7. She stated that they were also friends and that they lived in the same neighborhood. She testified that she saw Mr Williams touching Learner MRM on her bums and private parts on two different occasions. She stated when Mr Williams touched Learner MRM on her private part, Learner MRM slapped his hand. Then Mr Williams said it was not as if he has not seen the female private parts before.
20. Under cross-examination, she stated that both the incidents that she witnessed happened in the classroom. She did not know anything about the parents’ meeting. She confirmed that she also wrote a statement regarding the incidents. She stated that she did not know anything relating to Learner OM’s allegations. She confirmed that Mr Williams was a bubbly person and that he assisted them with projects.
21. Learner RZ testified under oath and stated that she was in the same class with Learner MRM during the year 2024. She testified that Mr Williams touched Learner MRM on her bums in class. She testified that she saw Mr Williams when he touched Learner OM on his bums and heard Mr Williams say the Learner OM’s bums were soft.
22. Under cross-examination, she confirmed that she saw Mr Williams when he touched Learner MRM’s bums, but she did not see him touch her vagina. She confirmed that she also saw Mr Williams touch Learner OM’s bums, but she did not see Mr Williams kiss Learner OM on the chicks. She stated that Learner MRM and Learner OM’s incidents did not happen on the same day. She confirmed that she knew about the parents’ meeting, but she did not know what was discussed. She confirmed that she also wrote a statement regarding Mr Williams’ conduct.
23. Ms Ramoitheki testified under oath and stated that she was the Head of Department at FJL Wells Primary School. She testified that Learner TM reported to her a day after the alleged incident that Mr Williams touched her bums. She confirmed that the document on page 14 of the bundle was authored by her to record what Learner TM reported to her. She stated that she was shocked when this incident was reported to her, because this was not the first time that such an allegation was reported against Mr Williams. However, the previous allegations were not pursued because parents did not want their children to testify in the case. She stated that after Learner TM reported to her, she took her to the Principal to report the alleged incident to the Principal and she called Learner TM’s mother.
24. Under cross-examination, she restated that Learner TM told her that Mr Williams touched her bums the previous day and stated that she did not ask Learner TM how she was touched. She confirmed that there was a parents’ meeting, but she did not know what was discussed in that meeting. She confirmed that she told learners to write their statements as per Ms Delman’s instruction. She refuted that the version that Mr Williams was not liked because of his race and his medical condition and stated that Mr Williams got along very well with many educators. She did not know about Mr Williams’ medical condition. However, she confirmed that she remember that Mr Williams had an epileptic fit at school.
25. Mr Sello Mphatswe (“Mr Mphatswe”) testified under oath and stated that he was the Principal at FJL Wells Primary School. He confirmed that he wrote the report that is on page 13 of the bundle. He stated that Ms Ramoitheki reported the incident of sexual assault of Learner TM allegedly by Mr Williams. He testified that he called Mr Williams to notify him of the allegation and he informed Mr Williams that the matter will be reported to the Department to handle the matter further. He stated that this allegation triggered an allegation that happened in 2020/21 that involved Mr Williams. He was shocked. He stated that Mr Williams was acquitted of the allegations of 2020/21 because parents did not want to subject their children to the same trauma.
26. Under cross-examination he confirmed that he knew about allegation 1, 2 and 4, but he did not know where these allegations came from. He stated that Ms Ramoitheki did not bring Learner TM to his office. He stated that he did not know what happened at the parents’ meeting as he was not part of the meeting. He disputed the version that he did not like Mr Williams and stated that Mr Williams was a very good teacher, but he had his shortcomings with admin work.

The Employee’s case

27. Mr Williams testified under oath and stated that he was an Educator at FJL Wells Primary school and that he taught English, Creative Arts and Life Skills. He stated that his classes were crowded with 45 – 48 learners. He stated that allegation 1 was untrue and submitted that it was impossible that he could have touched Learner MRM on her bums or vagina. Learners wore pants in winter. He stated that he heard about the parents’ meeting for the first time in these proceedings. He testified that allegation 2 and 4 were untrue and stated that it would not have been possible to try to kiss Learner OM whilst he was busy cleaning the chalkboard as he would have to be between Learner OM and the chalkboard and in view of the entire class. With regard to allegation 3, he stated that he was called to the Principal’s office and the Principal informed him that the parents of a learner called him (The Principal) and informed him that he (Mr Williams) touched a Grade 7 learner on the buttocks.
28. He was not told the name or gender of the learner. He was shocked. He spoke to Mr Selokela about the allegation and it was then that he learned that the learner in question was Learner TM. He stated that he never spoke to Learner TM neither did she talk to him in class. He testified that he thought the Principal has ill feelings against him. They initially had a good relationship, but it changed. He suggested that maybe the Principal felt threatened about his outgoing personality and that he got on very well with other educators and learners. However, he did not have any idea why the Principal did not like him.
29. Under cross-examination, he restated that the allegations were untrue and that what is alleged did not happen. He stated that the learners were not telling the truth. He stated that he did not know Learner MRM very well as she did not interact much in class. He also stated that he did not have a lot to do with Learner BM and that she was a quiet child in class. He submitted that these learners were fabricating these allegations because they were jealous that he gave other learners attention. He confirmed that he had a very close relationship with Mr Selokela. However, they did not talk about these allegations. He stated he did talk much with Learner OM and the Learner OM liked to joke around.
30. Learner LB testified under oath and stated that he was in Grade 7A in the year 2024 at FJL Wells Primary School. He testified that Mr Williams never touched Learner OM and that Learner OM never wiped the chalkboard as he was a naughty child and he always fought with Mr Williams. He testified that allegation 4 was not true. He stated that he sat at the front in class and that Learner OM liked to make jokes in class. Sometimes the jokes will be about Mr Williams. He testified that TM was lying and submitted that she was one of the disrespectful kids to Mr Williams. He stated that he did not see Mr Williams touching Learner TM’s bums. He testified that Mr Williams was a kind teacher who would always assist them. He stated that there was no discipline in Mr Williams’ class.
31. Under cross-examination, he confirmed that he knew Learner OM and he stood by his version that Mr Williams did not touch Learner OM. He restated that Learner OM and MRM were in the same class with him but later changed that Learner MRM was in Grade 7B. HE stated that Learner TM said that she did not like Mr Williams and she did not do Mr Williams’ projects. When pressed that Mr Williams testified that Learner TM’s book was neat and had stars, he conceded that his version could be wrong. He eventually conceded that his testimony about allegation 2, 3 and 4 was not correct. Under re-examination, he conceded that Learner OM, MRM and TM were in Grade 7B and he was in Grade 7A
32. Learner TC testified under oath and stated that Learner MRM was not in his class. He testified that Learner OM was in his class and that he was very disrespectful towards Mr Williams. He stated that Learner TM was in in Grade 7A. He submitted that he did not remember Learner OM cleaning the chalkboard and that he was one of the naughty kids in class. He averred that Mr Williams was very kind and helpful and that he did not talk a lot.
33. Under cross-examination, he reiterated that Learner OM was very disrespectful and that he wanted to fight with Mr Williams. He conceded that Learner OM was in Grade 7B and not in Grade 7A as he earlier testified. However, he was adamant that Learner TM was in Grade 7A.

Closing arguments

34. Parties submitted their closing arguments in writing. Therefore, they are a matter of record and as such, I will not rehearse them in this award. However. It must not be misconstrued that they were not considered.

Analysis of evidence and argument

35. This is an award in terms of section 138(7) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995, as amended (“the LRA”). Therefore, these are the brief reasons for my findings.
36. It is common ground that the test that is applicable in employment law is that of “on a balance of probabilities” and not “beyond reasonable doubt”. In Ergo Mining (Pty) Ltd v UASA obo Ngcobo and Others , the Labour Court (per Mosikili AJ) relied on Combined Transport Services (Pty) Ltd v Miya and Others to hold that:
    “In employment law disputes a proper assessment of evidence requires the attachment of more weight on the evidence that is consistent and / or more credible. Further, that the test is “balance of probabilities”, dictating that a more probable version should be accepted, as opposed to a “beyond reasonable doubt” test, which is the test applicable to criminal cases”.
37. Therefore, the principles enunciated in the Stellenbosch Farmers’ Winery judgment will be of relevance in making a proper determination in this matter. These principles are the credibility of witnesses, the reliability of witnesses and the probability of the respective versions.
38. It is trite that in proceedings where minors are involved, the arbitrator should endeavor to create and maintain an environment that will allow children to give reliable and complete evidence, minimize trauma to children, encourage children to testify and facilitate the ascertainment of truth so that the best interests of the child are upheld and to promote maximum accommodation of child witnesses without prejudice to the rights of the accused educator. I am satisfied that the environment in these proceedings was conducive for children to testify.
39. Courts have recognized that the evidence of children cannot be assessed in the same way as the evidence of adults, that it may be wrong to apply adult tests for credibility to the evidence of children, that a fair trial must not only take into account the rights of the accused but also the rights and capabilities of children, that a contradiction in a child’s testimony should not necessarily be given the same effect as a similar flaw in the testimony of an adult and that evidence if given by an adult may have had a deficiency so grave as to require rejection of it as incredible, may in the case of a child be explicable as due to the limitation of a child’s maturity rather than a lack of rationality.
40. I was impressed by the consistencies of the Employer’s witnesses in their evidence in chief and during cross examination. Notwithstanding that there were very minute inconsistencies in their evidence. For instance, Learner TM and Learner IG testified that they went together to Ms Ramoitheki to report the incident involving Mr Williams. On the other hand, Ms Ramoitheki’s version was that Learner TM came alone. Ms Ramoitheki stated that she went with Learner TM to the Principal to report the incident. On the other hand, the Principal said Ms Ramoitheki came alone to report the incident.
41. In my view, these inconstancies are immaterial when one considers the intrinsic and the external consistencies of the witnesses when they narrated the incident. Learner TM and Learner IG were corroborative when they narrated how Mr Williams touched Learner TM. The evidence of Learners TM and IG was not challenged except for bare denial by Mr Williams. Mr Williams wanted to paint a narrative that he was not liked at the school because of his race and that he was the only White educator at the school.
42. I therefore find on a balance of probabilities that the Employer succeeded in discharging its burden of proof. Consequently, I find Mr Williams guilty of allegation 3.
43. It is common cause that Learner OM liked to joke around in class and the reason that he did not report the incidents on allegation 2 and 4, according to his testimony, was that he thought that people would think that he was joking around.
44. Learners MRM, KD and RZ testified that they witnessed Mr William touching Learner OM on his bums. On the other hand, Learner LB and TC testified that Mr Williams did not touch Learner OM’s bums and that he did not try to kiss Learner OM. However, under cross examination, Learners LB and TC conceded that they were not in Learner OM’s class. Instead, they were both in Grade 7A. It therefore follows that they could not testify about an incident that allegedly occurred in their absence. Thus, Learners LB and TC were not credible and reliable witnesses in this regard. Again, as with allegation 1, Mr Williams denied that these incidents did take place. However, he did not even seek to suggest any motive that these learners had to fabricate lies against him.
45. Thus, I find that the Employer succeeded to discharge its burden of proof on a balance of probabilities that Mr Williams was guilty of allegations 2 and 4.
46. With regard to allegation 1, Learner MRM’s testimony was solid during her evidence in chief and under cross examination. Learners OM, BM, KD and RZ were resolute on their version of what they saw. Amongst these learners, only Learner BM witnessed the incident where Mr Williams touched Learner MRM’s vagina. Mr Williams’s witnesses (Learners LB and TC) could not testify on this allegation as they conceded under cross examination that they were not in the same class with Learner MRM. There was no contradictory version that Mr Williams put to the Employer’s witnesses. Therefore, the Employer’s versions remain unchallenged save for the bare denial by Mr Williams.
47. Therefore, I find that the Employer succeeded in discharging its burden of proof. As a result, I find Mr Williams guilty of allegation 1 as well.
48. It was held in the President of the Republic of South Africa and Others v South African Rugby Football Union and Others judgment that:

“The institution of cross-examination not only constitutes a right, but it also imposes certain obligations. As a general rule it is essential, when it is intended to suggest that a witness is not speaking the truth on a particular point, to direct the witnesses attention to the fact by questions put in cross-examination showing that the imputation is intended to be made and to afford the witness an opportunity while still in the witness box, of giving any explanation open to the witness and of defending his or her character. If a point in dispute is left unchallenged in cross-examination, the party calling the witness is entitled to assume that the unchallenged witness’s testimony is accepted as correct”

49. Mr Williams did not rebut the Employer witness versions. In his opening statement, in his testimony and in his heads of arguments, he canvassed an issue about his medical condition and his upbringing. He stated that he was an orphan who was raised by an adoptive mother who has since passed on. I do sympathize with him for these situations that are beyond his control. I unfortunately cannot sympathize with him for having done nothing about the alleged racial discrimination. He had recourse to lodge a grievance or to employ the prescripts of the Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998 and refer a discrimination dispute.
50. It is therefore my considered view that Mr Williams canvassed these narratives as an afterthought.
51. I have sensitized both the representatives to address me on the provisions of section 120 of the Children’s Act 38 of 2005 at the commencement of these proceedings. All the witnesses testified that Mr Williams was a bubbly, a very kind person and always assisted learners with their projects.
52. There is no doubt in my mind that Mr Williams has the traits that are fitting for an ideal educator. It is, however, not enough for one to have these traits but one must conduct himself / herself in a manner that is in line with the SACE Code of Professional Ethics.
53. Mr Williams contravened the Code of Professional Ethics and he did not comprehend the impact of his actions. It was not disputed that Mr Williams was previously charged with similar misconduct. However, he was acquitted due to the unavailability of witnesses. It was unfortunate that parents of the minor learners did not want their children to testify in those proceedings.

Award

54. I find that the Employer succeeded in discharging its burden of proof on all the allegations that were levelled against Mr Peter Williams.
55. Having found Mr Williams guilty on misconducts related to section 17 and 18 of the Employment of Educators Act, I return a sanction of dismissal as prescribed in section 17 of the Employment of Educators Act
56. I further find that Mr Peter Williams is unsuitable to work with children in terms of section 120(4) of the Children’s Act 38 of 2005. The General Secretary of the Council must, in terms of section 120(1) of the Children’s Act 38 of 2005, notify the Director General: Department of Social Development in writing of the finding of this forum made in terms of section 120(4) of the Children’s Act 38 of 2005 that Mr Peter Williams is unsuitable to work with children, for the Director General to enter his name as contemplated in section 120 in part B of the register.
57. I further find that the Educator, Mr Peter Williams, as a consequence to the transgression as referred in the charge sheet is in breach of the SACE Code of Professional Ethics as prescribed in terms of the South African Council of Educators Act 31 of 2000. In terms of clause 5.4 of of ELRC Collective Agreement 3 of 2018, the General Secretary shall send a copy of this award to the South African Council of Educators.

Arbitrator: Themba Manganyi