IN THE EDUCATION LABOUR LABOUR RELATIONS COUNCILS

Case No: ELRC885-24/25NW

In the arbitration proceedings between:

Gaothusiwe Adonijah Moreosele Applicant

And

HOD, Department of Education: NW Respondent

PANELIST:
Ntjatja Klaas Aphane
HEARD:
18 ,31 March,01 April,27 May,30 June & 01 July 2025
DELIVERED:

30 July 2025

ARBITRATION AWARD

Applicant’s representative: Frederick Paul (Legal Representative) Gaothusiwe Adonijah Moreosele

Respondent’s representative: TB Matshaba (Labour Relations Manager) Department of Higher Education: NW
DETAILS OF THE HEARING AND REPRESENTATION:

1. This is the arbitration award in the arbitration proceedings concerning an alleged unfair dismissal related to misconduct dispute between Gaothusiwe Adonijah Moreosele, the Applicant and the Department of Education: North West Provincial Government.
2. The dispute was referred to the ELRC in terms of section 191(5)(a) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (the LRA).
3. The arbitration was scheduled and held on 18 March 2025, virtually. The arbitration proceedings proceeded on 31 March & 01 April ,27 May, 30 June and 01 July 2025. All parties and witnesses attended physically at Bojanala District Offices, 102 Cnr Tambo and Kloppers Street, Palladium House, Rustenburg. The arbitration proceedings were held under the auspices of the ELRC in terms of section 191 (5)(a) of the LRA.
4. The Applicant appeared in person, and he was represented by his legal representative, Frederick Paul from Morebudi-Paul Inc Attorneys, whilst the Respondent was present and represented by its employee, TB Matshaba, Labour Relations Manager.
5. The arbitration award is issued in terms of section 138 (7) of the LRA.
6. The arbitration proceedings were digitally recorded and handwritten notes were taken.
7. The relief sought by the Applicant was retrospective reinstatement
   THE ISSUES TO BE DECIDED:
8. I am required to determine whether the dismissal of the Applicant was substantively and procedurally fair or not. If not fair, I must determine the appropriate relief.

THE BACKGROUND TO THE DISPUTE:

9. The Applicant started his employment relationship with the Respondent on 10 January 1994. He was employed as a School Principal at Hebron Technical High School, and he was earning a basic monthly salary of R74 068,05.
10. The Applicant’s employment relationship with the Respondent was terminated on 28 October 2024, consequent to an internal disciplinary hearing and the internal appeal process. The outcome of the appeal process was communicated to the Applicant on 28 October 2024.
11. The Applicant referred the alleged unfair dismissal related to misconduct dispute to the ELRC. The dispute was unresolved through conciliation process and the dispute was then scheduled for arbitration process on 18 March 2025.
12. The dismissal related to misconduct dispute was scheduled for arbitration process, and was held on 18 March virtually, and on 31 March,01 April, 27 May ,30 June and 01 July 2025x, at Rustenburg Palladium Building.
13. The Applicant’s dismissal was not in dispute, both the Applicant’s legal representative and the Respondent’s representative conceded that the Applicant was dismissed, and therefore dismissal was not in dispute.
14. The procedural and substantive fairness of the dismissal was in dispute.
15. The Respondent’s representative submitted a bundle of documents, bundle, “R”, consisting of pages 1 to 59, whilst the Applicant’s legal representative did not submit any bundle of documents. Therefore, bundle, “R”, was used as a common bundle. The signed pre-arbitration meeting minutes was submitted and is part of the bundle.
16. The Respondent’s representative called four (4) witnesses (Radiwane Aaron Motsatsing, Johannes Mothabetse Masekwameng, Oupa Jack Modingwana and Refiloe Catherine Malorene) whilst the Applicant’s legal representative called the Applicant to testify in support of his case, (Gaothusiwe Adonijah Moreosele).
17. The parties pleaded to submit written closing arguments on 11 July 2025, and cited several reasons to justify the deviation from the norm of seven (7) days. It was agreed that both parties should submit written closing arguments on 11 July 2025.
18. The Applicant was legally represented, so I adopted an adversarial approach to the arbitration process in order to determine the merits of the dispute fairly.
19. The relief sought by the Applicant was retrospective reinstatement.
    PRELIMINARY ISSUES:
20. There were no preliminary issues.
    SURVEY OF EVIDENCE:
21. I wish to state from the onset, that not all the evidence presented will be set out hereunder. Only a summary of the relevant evidence is contained herein.
    THE RESPONDENT’S CASE:
22. The first witness for the Respondent was Radiwane Aaron Motsatsing, who testified under oath that, he is an employee of the Respondent, and was employed as an Institutional State Accountant, from 18 June 1991. His core responsibilities are institutional financial support, financial analysis of financial affairs, attending to request for financial adjustment and budget compilation.
23. All school received money from the Department to the school must be audited, and he must receive audited statements from school for compliance. He is monitoring financial control and doing financial inspection at school.
24. The Applicant was the school Principal at Hebron Technical High School. There was whistle blowing or tip off anonymous about some irregularities at the school. Though it was not clear who was complaining or what was the complains about, the District Director appointed some employees to go to the school and investigate if there are merits or demerits from the whistle blowing. He was one of the employees tasked to visit the school and verify if there are financial irregularities or not or any irregularities at the school. The SGB members at Hebron Technical High School complained to the Minister of Education about the conduct of the Principal. The Minister of Education escalated or delegated the complaints to the MEC of education on the Province of North West.
25. It was the investigation at the school that resulted in the Applicant charged with two count of misconducts. It was discovered that school money or money in the account of the school were paid into the Educator’s accounts instead of such money paid into the service provider’s account. The R50 000,00 was divided into two, R22 500,00 was paid into the payee, OJ Modungwa and the other R22 500,00 was paid to RC Malorene. Both the payee were educators at the school.
26. In terms of the South African School Act, section 16A, the Principal of a public school represent the Head of the Department in the governing body when acting in an official capacity in respect of all financial matters of the school. The Principal is enjoined to take all reasonable steps to prevent any financial maladministration or mismanagement by any staff members or the SGB. He must also be a member of finance committee (FINCOM) of the school in order to manage any matter that has financial implications for the school and report any maladministration or mismanagement of financial matters to the SGB of the school. (R24). The FINCOM is a subcommittee of the SGB, and is made up of the principal, treasure, chairperson of the SGB and two parents. The Principal is required to be in all committee of the SGB and to ensure compliance by advising correctly on all financial processes.
27. The Institutional Governance School Support (IGSS) conducted workshop for all the schools at Madibeng District and the Applicant attended, and the sole purpose was to equip the Principals on their roles and responsibilities on finances and administration of the school.
28. The voucher and invoices must be appended and attached, and should be signed by the treasure, principal and the chairperson of the SGB before transaction can be effected. The school principal must authorised all the transaction
29. The SGB must convened meetings four (4) times annually and the FINCOMM must meet monthly. The treasure is the chairperson of the FINCOMM whilst the chairperson of the SGB is the chairperson on the entire SGB. The FINCOMM is a subcommittee and there are other subcommittees within the SGB.
30. There was no three (3) written quotations for the procurement of the sports gear / equipment and there was no requisition form with details of the service provider, amount to be paid and the banking details of the service provider and no supporting documentation. There was no FINCOM minutes and actually there was no FINCOM meetings. There was no treasure of the SGB. The two cheques were written to be cashed by the two educators whilst it is a requirement for the money to be paid into the account of the service provider. (R24).
31. Equally several payments were made to the service providers without the necessary authorisation of the treasure. The cheque book is entrusted in the Principal and the treasure only sign on the date of the transaction. Those four payments were not authorised by the treasure, the principal and the chairperson of the SGB as required but only the Applicant processed those payments. There was no FINCOM meeting minutes to support the payments. There were no supporting documents. The purpose of adhering to the prescribed Guidelines for Public School Financial Management and Reporting was to minimise loopholes that might lead to misappropriation of school funds. Therefore proper procedures must be followed all the time before payments or transactions can be completed.
32. The four cheques were paid to the service providers without any signature by the delegated officials, the Principal, treasure and the SGB Chairperson. The requisition of the voucher was not signed; the voucher was not signed. In terms of circular 68 of 1999, clause 4.15 provided that all payments shall be made only on a proper tax invoice or invoice, payments will not be made if it was not properly ordered and authorised by delegated authority.
33. In the event that the treasure resigns or is unable to perform treasure duties, the Principal must advice the SGB to appoint someone temporarily in order to act as a treasure in order to handle financial matters. No one within the SGB was appointed to act and the practice was to take cheque to the treasure place of residence without FINCOMM minutes.
34. The Principal told them that three cheques were lost between the school and the treasure place of residence. He did not see the lost cheques except one reflecting on his cell phone as cashed. All of those three cheques were signed and cashed. The money was taken out of the school account without any prior approval of the delegated authorities, i.e. the principal, the treasure and the SGB chair. This highlighted the importance of strict adherence to the financial management policies of the Department.
35. The Principal was aware that failure to ensure proper financial management of the school is a misconduct and it was explained to him, so he was aware.
36. Either the chairperson or treasure was wheel-chaired bound when visited by the investigating team and indicated that there was no FINCOM meetings, but the practice was to bring the cheque to his / her house for signature only.
37. During cross examination, the witness was adamant that though he was not physically present at the school to witness the Applicant failing to ensure compliance and advice to the SGB, he maintained that if proper procedures were followed, there would be FINCOMM meeting minutes to support his stance of support and guidance to the SGB. Though the Applicant has changed his mind, he admitted that he failed to guide and support the FINCOMM on financial governance and administration of the school.
38. During cross examination, the witness indicated that the Principal indicated that there was burglary at the school and documents were stolen. He reported the break in to the SAPS. He however failed to indicate that the FINCOMM meeting minutes were stolen.
39. During cross examination, the witness refuted that the Chair of the SGB can be nominated as acting treasure. In the event of the treasure resigning, a by-election must be held to fill such role. It is not permissible for the chairperson of the SGB to act as a FINCOMM chairperson, treasure. The Principal failed to notified the Department to come and facilitate the by election of the treasure if it is true that the treasure resigned in 2018, though he does not agree with version of the Applicant. There must always be three (3) signatories and not one person signing twice as chairperson of the SGB and acting treasure.
40. During cross examination, the witness refuted allegations that there are service providers that refused to accept cheque payments and submitted that even though cheques were in the process of being phased out, the service providers were paid in cheques during that time. The principal and FINCOMM members were interviewed and there was no FINCOMM meetings held. The Principal indicated that the documents were stolen.
41. The second witness for the Respondent was Johannes Mothabetse Masekoameng who testified under oath that he was an employee of the Respondent, employed as a Deputy Chief Education Specialist. He was an employee of the Respondent from 1983.
42. Part of his core responsibilities is to investigate cases misconduct cases within the District, draft charges of misconduct, initiates at the disciplinary actions and preside over cases. He was the presiding officer of the disciplinary action against the Applicant. The Applicant was the School Principal of Hebron Technical High School. He did not know the Applicant before the disciplinary action and he was objective.
43. His key considerations were evidence adduced at the disciplinary hearing. He ensured that the rights of the Applicant were adhered to and respected. The Applicant was represented by the recognised trade union, SADTU. He listened to the evidence of the employer and the employee and passed his verdict of guilty.
44. The Applicant’s trade union official, Joel Mnisi, SADTU, presented mitigating circumstances in writing on 26 July 2023, and pages R38 to R42 was a proof that mitigating circumstances were taken into considerations when passing sanction. It was therefore incorrect of the Applicant to alleged that he was not given an opportunity to mitigate. It is not uncommon for parties to the disciplinary process to agree on written aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
45. During cross examination, he disputed that written mitigation and aggravation were hearsay but confirm that the practice was common and if the Applicant was not comfortable, he could have raised an objection to his SADTU’s representative agreeing to written mitigation. The SADTU representative was representing the Applicant and therefore he was not aware that the Applicant does not like or agree to written mitigation circumstances.
46. He matches the evidence to the charges, and he was convinced based on the evidence that the Applicant committed those misconduct.
47. The third witness for the Respondent was Oupa Jack Modungwa, who testify under oath that he is an employee of the Respondent and employed as an Educator at Hebron Technical High School. He is a teacher for thirty-three (33) years. He is also a Sports Committee Chairperson and the Learners Teachers Support Material Chairperson at the school.
48. The President of the Netball South Africa was frequenting the school and in some of the visit pledge to donate R50 000,00 towards sports equipment for the school. The President of Netball South Africa did not commit to the date and time of the donation of R50 000,00.
49. He was called by the Principal to his office at some stage and told that the money or the pledge of donation of R50 000,00, by the President of Netball South Africa was paid into the account of the school and it was time to purchase the sports equipment.
50. The School Principal called him and told him to get someone with South African Identity Document within the Sports Committee and bring such person to the Principal office in order to get the two cheques of R50 000,00. The R50 000,00 was to be divided into two cheques. He went out and called Refiloe Catherine Malorene, who was in possession of her South African Identity Documents and both went to the Principal office. Refiloe Catherine Malorene was also a member of the School Sports Committee.
51. The Principal told them that he will issue two cheques of R22 500,00, one to him and the other to Refiloe Catherine Malorene. They cannot use the whole R50 00,00 but only R45 000,00 and R5000,00 would be for Netball transport. The two cheques were prepared and issued to them and one cheque was issued in the name of Refiloe Catherine Malorene for the amount of R22 500,00 and the other was issued to the witness, OJ Modungwa for the amount of R22 500,00.
52. The Principal did not give them quotations and there were no quotations at all. He was the one charged with responsibilities of sourcing quotations, together with school sports committee and not the Principal and or not the SGB.
53. He gave report to the five (5) Sports Committee Members and requested them to accompany him to Pretoria North, Standard Bank, to cash the cheques and head straight to Montana to purchase the sports equipment.
54. At Montana, they requested three quotations, from Games, Total Sports and another shop but they were too expensive and more than R45 000,00. The Sports Shop was at Pretoria CBD and was far less than the shops at Montana and they agreed to buy the sports equipment at Sports Shop. The Games store quotation was high and total Total Sports high and the best price was Sports Shop. The total costs of the sports equipment were approximately R44 800 and they gave the principal the change was either R2 or something less (Not sure but less than R2).
55. The Sports gear / equipment’s, the change and the three quotations and receipt were given to the Principal. There was no quotation in the morning and there were no discussions of the quotation in the morning before departing to the shops. There was no SGB members at the school and the Principal was not aware of the shop visited on the day.
56. He was not comfortable to handle the whole R50 000,00 alone, hence the request for another School Sports Committee member to be part of the process. It was not for the first time that he was entrusted with school money. He was assigned school money to buy food for learners on school trips and pay for transport.
57. They did not enquire from the shop if cheques were acceptable or not and the Principal did not sensitize them of the shops that were not accepting purchases through cheques.
58. The five members of the Sports Committee were Refiloe Catherine Malorene, COP Khumalo, Betty S Mabotja, Mashishi Patrick and Oupa Jack Modungwa.
59. The fourth witness for the Respondent was Refiloe Catherine Malorene, who testified that she was an employee of the Respondent and was employed as an Educator for 19 years.
60. She was a member of the Sports and Catering Committee and currently only a Sports Committee member.
61. She was asked by the Chairperson of the Sports Committee, OJ Modungwa, to go with him to the School Principal Office, and bring her Identity Document with her, and at the Principal office, she was issued with a cheque in her name for R22 500,00. The other R22 500,00 was issued to OJ Modungwa.
62. The five Sports Committee members were then instructed to cash the two cheques at Pretoria North and went to Montana to buy sports gear and could not find the cheaper shop. They got two quotations from Games and Total Sports and the third Sports Shop was in Pretoria Central. They bought the sports gear and brought it to school, and a change was given to the Principal.
63. There was no quotation in the morning to compare and they source the quotations at the shops. The Principal was dealing with the Chairperson of the Sports Committee. All the money given were accounted for.
64. She was entrusted with school finances before and always accounted for the money entrusted to her.
65. The Applicant was charged with the following counts of misconduct:
    Charge 1
    During 30 October 2019 at your place of work, you allegedly committed an act of misconduct as contemplated in SASA when you failed to assist and advise the SGB with the management of the schools funds in that the SGB paid certain service providers through Educators at your school: –
    Number
    Date Cheque Number Amount Payee Service Provider
    1 30/10/2019 105401 R22 500,00 OJ Modungwa Sports Equipment
    2 30/10/2019 105402 R22 500,00 RC Malorene Sports Equipment
    As a result of your alleged conduct you contravened the provisions of section 18 (1)(f) of the Employment of Educators Act 76 of 1998 which reads as follows, “while on duty, you unjustifiably prejudice the administration, discipline or efficiency of the Department of Education, an office of the state or a school, further education and training institution or adult learning centre, read together with section 16A (2) of the South African Schools Act.
    Charge 2
    During May and June 2019 at your place of work, you allegedly committed an act of misconduct as contemplated in the Act when you allowed the processing of the following cheques without the authority of the SGB treasurer:
    Date Cheque No Amount Payee Purpose
    14/05/2019 18 R11 350,00 Matlakala A Stipend & hiring of chairs
    07/06/2019 21 R11 490,00 Bogops Cleaning material
    14/06/2019 26 R1 600,00 PT Motau Transport ,Netball
    26/06/2019 33 R4 033,27 Garankuwa Cash & Carry Catering grade 12s
    As a result of your alleged conduct , you have contravened the provisions of section 18 (1)(a) of the Employment of Educators Act 76 of 1998, which reads as follows, “while on duty , you failed to comply with or contravened this Act or any other statute , regulation or legal obligation relating to education and the employment relationship, read together with section 16A (2) (a) (v) of SASA as amended provides that the Principal in undertaking the professional management of a public school as contemplated in section 16(3) carry out duties which include , but are not limited to the safekeeping of all school records , (h) assist the SGB with the management of the school funds, which assistance must include (ii) the giving of advice to the governing body on the financial implications of decisions relating to matters of the school, (i) take all reasonable steps to prevent any financial maladministration by any staff member or by the governing body of the school.
    THE APPLICANT’S CASE:
66. The Applicant was the only witness to testy in support of his case. He testified under oath that he was an employee of the Respondent, employed as a School Principal at Hebron Technical High School, earning a monthly salary of R74 068,05. He started working for the Respondent on 10 January 1994.
67. He was employed as an Educator and through career mobility, he was promoted to be a Deputy Principal and at the time of his dismissal, he was a Principal for eight (8) years. During his thirty years of employment by the Respondent, there was no disciplinary process or any warning issued to him saves to say the disciplinary process that led to the current dispute.
68. He is currently unemployed and the outcome of the appeal against his dismissal was communicated to him on 28 October 2024. The executing authority dismissed his appeal on 28 October 2024. He received his last salary in February 2025.
69. The charges preferred against him were splitting of charges and does not make sense to him. The issue of the R50 000,00 was as the result of the school invited to a netball tournament by Netball South Africa President. His school brought a lot of spectators and the President of Netball South Africa pledged R50 000,00 to the school. The money was later deposited into the school account.
70. He gave the money, R22 500,00 to OJ Modungwa and the other R22 500,00 to RC Malorene to purchase the sports gear / equipment. One SGB member who is part of the Sports Committee obtained verbal quotation. It was brought to his attention that some of the services providers were not accepting cheque payments, and therefore wrote out the two cheques in Educator’s name, who were supposed to cash the cheques and purchase the sports gear / equipment and brought the gear to the school.
71. The sports gear / equipment was bought and brought to the school and the two cheques issued were accounted for. He was mandated by the school SGB to task some trusted educator with the money to purchase the sports gear / equipment. It was the SGB that took a decision to cash the two cheques and purchase the sports gear / equipment with cash.
72. He initially interacted with OJ Modungwa, who later brought RC Malorene and the R50 000,00 was divided and each of them, were issued with a cheques of R22 500,00. The minutes of the SGB decision were lost as the result of the burglary. The R5000,00 was for transport of the learners. The total amount given to the two educators was R45 000 00. There were invoices and the sports gear / equipment brought to the school and the change was given to him and everything was accounted for. He gave the SGB report that the R45 000,00 was used correctly.
73. There is nothing wrong to purchase school goods and services using the Educators to pay the service providers. He attended training wherein, he was told that the teachers can be issued with cheques to pay the service providers as long as the school account for the goods and services for the money used.
74. He advised the SGB about the transaction and the first witness of the Respondent was not at school when he advised the SGB.
75. The subcommittee of the SGB, FINCOM is made up of a Secretary, Treasure, Principal and the Chairperson of the SGB. Mr Tshwane was elected treasurer and chairperson of FINCOM but he resigned in 2018 and there was no treasure at the school from 2018 after the resignation of the treasure, Mr Tshwane.
76. The SGB resolved in one of the meeting, minutes lost, to elect the Chairperson of the SGB as an acting treasure and was signing on behalf of the treasure, all payments for transactions at school. It was also difficult to change the signatories at the bank. It was agreed and resolved to use the Chairperson and the Secretary at the bank because both of them were signatories at the bank. All of the cheques were signed. The Chairperson of the SGB who was acting as treasure did authorise and sign the cheques.
77. There was burglary at the school and all minutes of the FINCOM were lost. He cannot recall the date of the burglary. Documents stolen were SGB records and other valuable items were stolen. The finance records and cheque vouchers were not stolen.
78. With regards to charge 2, some payments were made to avoid bank charges but were authorize and signed for by the acting treasure. Some minutes were taken by the anti-corruption unit and never returned to the school whilst others were taken by the investigators and never returned to school.
79. There were FINCOMM meetings but did not meet every month.
80. The R50 000,00 for sports gear / equipment were divided into two because the bank did not approve or allow the school to cash more than R30 000,00.
81. During cross examination, it was asked why the Applicant failed to annotate in the logbook or entry book the loss of the SGB minutes but the entry book captured all stolen items at the school (R42 to R59). The Applicant responded that sometimes he forgot to enter the entry in the logbook or entry book (R57, R58 and R59).
82. During cross examination, the Applicant conceded that the PMFA requires three written quotation and not verbal quotation but justified his action because it was the resolution of the SGB.
    ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS:
83. In considering the merits of this dispute, I had regard to the provisions of the LRA, the ELRC Dispute Resolution Procedure, and the Code of Good Practice: Dismissal (the Code) of the LRA, SASA, and relevant case law.
84. Everyone has the right to a fair labour practices. This cardinal principle is enshrined in section 23 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 108 of 1996. This right is well entrenched by section 185 of the LRA, which provide the right not to be unfairly dismissed or subjected to unfair labour practices.
85. In the case of Sidumo and another v Rustenburg Platinum Mines (Pty) Ltd and others (2007) 28 ILJ 2405 (CC) 2007) 12 BLLR 1907 (CC), the court held that, “one of the primary objects of the LRA is to give effect to and to regulate the fundamental rights conferred by section 23 of the Constitution, including the right to fair labour practices enshrined in section 23(1).
86. Section 188 of the LRA provides that an employee’s dismissal will be unfair if the employer fails to prove that the dismissal was for a fair reason and that it was effected in accordance with a fair procedure.
87. In terms of section 192 of the LRA, the employee must prove that he was dismissed and the employer then bears the onus to prove that the dismissal was fair.
88. The dismissal of the Applicant was not in dispute; both the Respondent’s representative and the Applicant’s legal representative confirmed that the Applicant was dismissed.
89. Procedural fairness and substantive fairness was in dispute.
90. An arbitration process is a new (de novo) hearing, which means that the evidence concerning the reason of the Respondent’s decisions (which is challenged or in dispute) is heard afresh. That means I must determine the fairness of the Respondent’s decision on the evidence admitted and submissions made at the arbitration.
91. OJ Modungwa and RC Malorene testified that there was no quotation when they left Hebron Technical High School to buy sports gear / equipment but they source and compare prices whilst at the shops at Montana and Pretoria CBD. The Applicant never shared any quotation verbally or written with the Sports Committee members. Mr OJ Modungwa as the chairperson of the Sports Committee submitted that he is the one charged with sourcing quotation and that was not done with regards to the sports gear / equipment.
92. The R50 000,00 donations from the President of Netball South Africa was written and issued on names of two Educators, each given R22 500,00 for the purchase of the sports gear / equipment. They were instructed to cash the cheques at Pretoria North, Standard Bank, and they duly complied.
93. The Applicant gave several reasons why the R45 000,00 was divided into two, amongst those reasons were that R50 000,00 or the R45 000,00 was too heavy for the chairperson of the Sports Committee. The services providers were no longer accepting cheque for payments purposes. The SGB took a resolution to split the money into two as per his advice and support. Three verbal quotation were sources by the SGB member on Sports Committee. The bank does not cash more than R30 000,00 and it would not be prudent for the Educators who are Sports Committee to carry huge cash due to criminal risks.
94. The treasure of the SGB, the chairperson of the subcommittee of finance and FINCOMM chair was elected in 2018 and resigned in 2018. At the time of the purchase of sports gear / equipment in 2019, there was no chairperson of FINCOMM but rather the SGB chairperson was acting treasure.
95. In terms of the Guidelines for Public School Financial Management Act and Reports, clause 9 which deals with procurements and payment of goods and services, requires sourcing of three written preferential procurements and to file all quotations as evidence of process being followed. There must be a requisition and such requisition must be approved. Therefore, verbal quotation cannot work. Equally on payment of goods and services, it provides that cheque payment must be arranged through cheque requisition and there must be approval of requisition before drafting the cheque. Clause 9(h) requires all schools to file all quotations and copies of order. Clause 9.3(b) requires that the original source documents must be attached, approval of the requisition approved, quotations be attached and the delivery note and invoice be attached.
96. It is quite strange that the Principal kept an entry book at school but failed to captured important loss of documents at the school whilst other items were mentioned clearly.
97. The Applicant’s version is highly questionable in that he failed to give consistent versions but mentioned many reasons that do not correlate e.g. Someone from SGB source verbal quotation but could not elaborate from which services providers, what was the prices. He only mention that his service providers were not accepting cheque payments, divided the money because the bank were not accepting cheque encashment of more than R30 000,00. It was risky to carry cash but the same two educators were made to cash the cheque and carry cash to the CBD. The sport committee chair indicated that the money was too heavy for him.
98. How possible could the SGB that complained to the Minister of Education about the conduct of the Applicant, source verbal quotes, because there was mistrust already between them and the Applicant, otherwise they would not escalate the matter to the Minister’s level.
99. Equally his testimony that he was trying to avoid bank charges seems to be an afterthoughts and unfair justification from deviating from the financial management guidelines.
100. All witnesses of the Respondent were credible, consistent and corroborated each other on purchase of sports gear / equipment and the amount given through the two cheques. There were no quotations.
101. The Applicant was well experienced and knowledgeable as a school principal, and was a deputy school principal for some times and therefore was competent to execute his duties more-so financial management. It was not dispute that he attended the IGSS aimed at equipping him to deal with financial management within the school set-up.
102. Section 37(1) of the South African School Act 84 of 1996 provides that the governing body of a public school must establish a school fund and administer it in accordance with the prescription issued by the head of the department. The purchase of the sports gear / equipment did not comply with Circular 68 of 1999, clause 4,15 that requires all payments to be made only on a proper tax invoice or invoice with necessary supporting documents.
103. The Government Regulations No 60206, clause 24 requires that as soon as there is vacancy in the SGB, such vacancy must be filled within 90 days. The Applicant testified that the SGB was elected in 2018 and the treasure, Mr Tshwane resigned in 2018. During May / June and October 2019, the school and the Principal failed to comply with clause 24(5).
104. The prescription issued by the head of the department requires compliance with three written quotations, cheques be made payable to the service provider and not employees of the school.
105. The SASA, Circular 68 of 1999, PMFA, Government Regulations 60206, clause 24 and the PMFA are designed to protect and guide both the Applicant and the Respondent.
106. The Labour Appeal Court in De Beer Consolidated Mines v CCMA (2000) 9 BLLR 995 (LAC), the Court held that, “acknowledgement of wrongdoing is the first step towards rehabilitation. In the absence of a recommitment to the employer’s workplace values, an employee cannot hope to re-establish the trust which he / she has broken”.
107. The Applicant is blaming burglary, investigators, the misconduct charges are wrong except himself and failed to appreciate the wrongfulness of his misconduct.
108. In Department of Labour v GPSSBC (2010) 231 ILJ 1313 (LAC), the Labour Appeal Court confirmed the principle that a sanction aimed at correction and rehabilitation is of no purpose when an employee refuses to acknowledge the wrongfulness of his / her conduct.
109. It goes without saying that the Applicant does not appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct, and its impact on financial management of the school. The Applicant is blaming burglary, investigators, the charges except himself and failed to appreciate the wrongfulness of his misconduct.
110. In National Union of Mineworkers of South Africa obo Nganezi & others v Dunlop Mixing and technical services (Pty) limited & others (2019) 40 ILJ 1957 (CC) para 624, the Court held that the employment relationship is grounded on the fundamental values of trust, confidence, reliability, loyalty, mutual respect, and good faith. Consequently, these fundamental values form the heart of the employment relationship which ought to be exercised by both the employee and the employer at all material times during the subsistence of their relationship.
111. Surely the conduct of the Applicant does not inspire confidence, and flouting financial management guidelines cannot be a duty of good faith expected of the senior employee towards his employer.
112. Item 3(4) of schedule 8 (Code of Good Practice: Dismissal) of the LRA, provides that it is generally inappropriate to dismiss an employee for a first offence, except if the misconduct is serious and of such gravity that it makes a continued employment relationship intolerable.
113. Based on the above, I have considered Woolworths (Pty) Ltd V Mabija & others (2016) 37 ILJ 1380 (LAC), paragraph 21 of the judgement addresses the possibilities of dismissal for a first-time offense due to the seriousness of the misconduct. It states that in some cases, the “outstandingly bad conduct of the employee would warrant an inferences that the trust relationship has been destroyed”. This implies that dismissal may be justified for a first offence if the misconduct is sufficiently serious.
114. In terms of item 4 (1) of the Code of Good Practice on Dismissal (the Code), the employer should notify the employee of the allegations using a form and a language that the employee can reasonable understand, and the employee should be entitled to a reasonable time to prepare the response and to the assistance of a trade union representative or fellow employee. After the enquiry, the employer should communicate the decision taken and preferably furnish the employee with written notification of that decision.
115. The Applicant was charged and served with charge sheet, served with notice to attended a disciplinary meeting, he participated in the disciplinary hearing, he was represented by an official of SADTU, he was given a verdict, allowed mitigation and appeal, he was notified of the sanction and outcome of the appeal and advised to refer the dispute to the ELRCS.
116. Therefore, the dismissal of the Applicant did comply with item 4(1) of the Code of Good Practice on Dismissal.
117. Equally, in terms of item 7 of the Code of Good Practice on Dismissal (the Code), the following must be consider in determining the fairness of the dismissal, whether the employee contravened the rule, if the rule was valid or reasonable, if the employee was aware of the rule or is reasonable expected to be aware of the rule, the rule is consistently applied by the employer and if dismissal is the appropriate sanction for breached of such a rule.
118. In Woolworths (Pty) Ltd v SACCAWU and others (JA 56/2016) (2017) ZALAC 54, the court laid down steps for an inquiry into a breach of a rule and held that in cases of a breach, the Commissioner must consider, whether there was a rule breached, the nature and importance of the rule breached, whether the employee had knowledge of the rule or was expected to have such knowledge, whether the rule had been consistently applied and whether dismissal was an appropriate sanction.
119. Based on the totality of evidence, and submissions at the arbitration processes, the Respondent cannot be faulted for terminating the employment of the Applicant.
120. The Applicant did not show remorse for his actions. Trust relationship, cornerstone of the employment relationship is broken beyond doubt as the SGB resorted to whistle-blowing to resolve the challenges at school.
121. In Tseane v Get Ahead Foundation (1995) 16 ILJ 202 (IC), the Court held that an employee owes an employer a duty to always promote its business interests and act in its interest. A breach of this duty by an employee entitles an employer to dismiss him.
122. In the Publication, Principles pf Practice Labour Law, issue 7, (2005) paragraph 245, it is held that, “When rendering services, the employee must ensure that his services are executed in good faith and that they in no destruct from the relationship of trust”.
123. This misconduct is of a serious nature and warrants the Respondent losing trust and confidence in the Applicant, more so that the Applicant was employed in a position of trust as a school principal.
124. Though the misconduct took place in 2019, the Respondent only instituted the disciplinary process after the task team’s investigation. The disciplinary hearing was held in 2023 and finalise in 2023. It was not possible for the Respondent to act on time during 2019 because the misconduct was not brought to its attention.
125. The Respondent has discharged the onus to prove the existence of good reasons for the dismissal of the Applicant and therefore cannot be faulted on substantive fairness.
126. Therefore, the Respondent cannot be faulted for dismissal on substantive fairness and procedural unfairness.
     Award
     In the premises I make the following award
127. The Applicant, Gaothusiwe Adonijah Moreosele’s, dismissal by the Respondent, Department of Education: North west was procedurally and substantively fair.
128. The Application is dismissed.
129. There is no order as to costs.

Thus, done and signed at Pretoria, dated 30 July 2025.