31 March 2026 – ELRC238-25-26GP

ARBITRATION AWARD

Case Number: ELRC238-25-26GP
Commissioner: E Maree
Date of Award: 31 March 2026

In the ARBITRATION between

SADTU obo Patricia Sedidi
(Applicant)

And

            Department of Education-Gauteng

(Respondent)

Details of hearing and representation

1The arbitration hearing regarding an alleged unfair labour practice, referred in terms of section 191 of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (as amended), (the ‘’LRA’’) was heard on 25 July 2025, 19 September 2025, 31 October 2025, 30 January 2026 and concluded on 3 March 2026. The matter was heard at the Soshanguve Teachers Centre, Soshanguve.

The applicant was represented by Mr. M.J. Makaleng an official from SADTU, while the respondent was represented by Mr. Sekwale a Senior Education Specialist. The process was also assisted by an interpreter and intermediary.
The arbitration was electronically recorded, and handwritten notes were taken. At the conclusion of the last arbitration hearing, the parties have agreed to submit written closing arguments on or before 16 March 2026.

Issues to be decided

I must determine whether or not the applicant was subjected to an unfair labour practice when issued with a final written warning and two months unpaid suspension. In the event of a finding of unfairness, I must determine the appropriate relief.

Background to the dispute

The applicant is employed as an PL1 Educator at Rosslyn Primary School and has 34 years’ experience as educator.
The applicant was charged with misconduct and attended a disciplinary hearing on 21 October 2024 on the following charges

‘’Allegation 1

It is alleged that on or around 3 June 2024 while on duty at Rosslyn Primary School, you assaulted Grade 3 learners Botshelo Tshukudu and Aphiwe Numalo at Rosslyn Primary School by slapping them on their cheeks.

In view of your actions, you are thus charged with misconduct in terms of Section 18(1) ( r ) of the Employment of Educators Act, Act 76 of 1998 as amended.

Allegation 2

It is alleged that on or around 5 June 2024 while on duty at Rosslyn Primary School, you assaulted a Grade 3 learner Botshelo Tshukudu at Rosslyn Primary School by pushing his head against the wall.

In view of your actions, you are thus charged with misconduct in terms of Section 18(1) ( r ) of the Employment of Educators Act, Act 76 of 1998 as amended’’

Following the finding of guilt on both allegations and the imposition of the sanction of a final written warning and 2-months unpaid suspension, the applicant lodged an appeal against the sanction which was dismissed on 22 April 2025.
The applicant disputed the contravention of the workplace rule/s and seeks the uplifting/setting aside of the sanction.
The parties submitted a common bundle of document that also contained the signed pre-arbitration minutes (pages 20-23).

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.

Applicants’ s evidence

19 The applicant testified and called four (4) witnesses in order to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that she was subjected to an unfair labour practice.

The applicant Mrs. Patricia Sedidi testified that she is not guilty of allegation one as she did not slap the learner against his cheeks. It was her birthday on 3 June 2024 and the class was excited and wanted to sign ‘’Happy birthday’’. She allowed this but stopped them after a while. Botshelo and Aphiwe however, continued singing. They eventually stopped singing and they continued with the days’ work.
Mrs Sedidi submitted that at some point, she left the class in order to make copies in the office. She was out for a brief period and upon her return found Botshelo. Aphiwe, Mojalefa, Quasane and Simon standing and running/sliding around in class. She told them to go outside the class and face the wall next to the class. She again left the class to collect the copies from the office and upon returning was behind the boys facing the wall (they did not see her). Botshelo was poking the learners who were standing to his left and right hand side. She walked next to him and said ‘’is this how you face the wall?”’. She left them outside and returned to the class.
According to Mrs Sedidi she continued working with the class and then again went outside to talk to them. She told them they are disrupting her and asked why they did so and spoiled her birthday. She was angry and reprimanded them whereafter they went into the class and they continued to work until the end of the day. She did not push anyone against the wall.
Mrs. Sedidi testified that Botshelo was continuously disruptive in class and ‘’starting something’’ when she was writing on the board. She eventually had him sit next to her table. She created a WhatsApp group with the parents and asked the learners to provide her with their cell numbers. Due to Botshelo misbehaving she wanted to call his mother, but the number ‘’did not go through’’. She also moved him away from Aphiwe due to the ongoing disruptions. Aphiwe on the other hand is ‘’very calm’’ but he followed Botshelo and would become disruptive.
Regarding allegation 2, Botshelo again did not want to sit down and she told him to go outside and face the wall, she never told him to go to the toilet. She also told him that if his mother does not come to school, she would go to his house with the bus. The next day, his mother arrived at school and said that Botshelo told her that she ‘had beaten him’’. She was once told by Aphiwe that Botshelo had beaten him before school started and such was also relayed to her when his mother phoned her.
The first witness of the applicant, Mojalefa Nxane stated that he is 11 years old and during November 2025 was in Grade 4 and during 2024 he was in Grade 3 and in Ms Sedidi’s class. On her birthday, (3 June 2024) the class sang to her and Botshelo and Aphiwe did not stop signing. This made Ms Sedidi ‘’very sad’’. She gave them work to do and went out of class to collect papers at the office.
When Ms Sedidi returned he, Dipako, Botshelo and Aphiwe were standing up in the class and she told them to go out and face the wall. She again left the class to go to the office and when she returned, she found that Botshelo and Aphiwe were not facing the wall and she then showed Botshelo how to face the wall. Ms Sedidi went into the class and later went out and told them ‘’not to do it again’’. They went back into class and continued working.
Ms Sedidi did not slap Botshelo or Aphiwe on their cheeks and did not push them against the wall. On 5 June 2024 he was in class ‘’the whole time’’ and Ms Sedidi did not tell anyone to go out of the class. He also did not see Botshelo ‘’with bruises’’.
The second witness Ramaboa Tutuetsang testified that he is now 10 years old and in Grade 4. During 2024 he was in Grade 3 and in Ms Sedidi’s class. On 3 June 2024 it was her birthday and they sang to her. Botshelo and Aphiwe did not stop singing. Ms Sedidi ‘’was unhappy’’ and left the class to get papers in the office. When she returned, Botshelo, Aphiwe and 2 other boys (Mojalefa and Dipako) were ‘’sliding in the class’’. She told them to go out and face the wall. Ms Sedidi again left the class to go to the office and when she returned. Botshelo ‘’was disrupting the kids who were facing the wall’’. Ms Sedidi then said to Botshelo ‘’is this how you face the wall?’’. He was not part of the group of boys who were told to go outside and face the wall. In class, before the group of boys left the class, Ms Sedidi did not slap Botshelo or Aphiwe against their cheeks.
On 5 June 2024 he was at school and in class the whole day. Ms Sedidi did not tell Botshelo or Aphiwe to go to the toilet. He did not see bruises on Botshelo. Botshelo and Aphiwe ‘’ are naughty and fights a lot’’. Dipako is also naughty but Mojalefa ‘’does not like to fight or be naughty’’.
The third witness, Andisa Moroleng testified that he is now in Grade 4 and during 2024 was in Grade 3 and in Ms Sedidi’s class. On 3 June 2024 was Ms Sedidi’s birthday and they were all excited and sang to her. When they stopped, Botshelo and Andiwe did not stop signing and only stopped later. Ms Sedidi left the class ‘’to get papers’’ and when she returned, she found Botshelo, Aphiwe, Mojalefa and Dipako running around. Ms Sedidi told them to go out and face the wall. He was not part of the group that were told to go outside and did not go out and did not see what happened outside. He did not see any bruises on Botshelo. Ms Sedidi did not slap anyone in the classroom. On 5 June 2024 he was at school and Ms Sedidi did not tell anyone to go outside. Botshelo has a ‘’very bad behaviour’’ and Andiwe ‘’follows him’’.
The fourth witness Martha Josephine Moleka testified that she is an educator at Rosslyn Primary School and that Botshelo and Andiwe had also been in her class when they were in Grade 2. Botshelo ‘’was naughty and disruptive’’ and she made him sit in front of her desk. Andiwe was not in her class but he is also naughty and was part of a group of learners who ‘’are troublesome’’. .

Respondent’s evidence

The respondent called five (5) witnesses to testify on its behalf.
The first witness Botshelo Tshukudu testified that it was Ms Sedidi’s birthday on 3 June 2024 and he ‘’kept talking’’ and she told him to go out and to follow her to the girls toilet and there she ‘’clapped me three times against the cheeks with both hands’’. He stated that another learner, Tshapalang, saw him when he was in the toilet.
He further stated that on 5 June 2024 he asked for an eraser as he made a mistake, Ms Sedidi told him to go out as he ‘was making noise’’. She told him to face the wall and then ‘’pushed’’ him against the wall. He testified that when she returned he was not facing the wall, and she then ‘’pushed’’ him against the wall. He stated that at first he was with Aphiwe and Ronelwa outside, facing the wall but the applicant told them to go back to class and he was then alone outside, facing the wall when she pushed him against the wall. The witness claimed that the applicant put her hand against the back of his head and pushed it against the wall.
The second witness Tshapalang Amokela testified that she is currently in Grade 4. She was in the toilet and saw Ms Sedidi ‘’pinch’’ Botshelo’s cheeks and slapping him 3 times ‘’against his cheeks. She asked Ms Sedidi if she could go the toilet and was given permission. She went out of the class first and before she went into the toilet, she saw Ms Sedidi pinching his cheeks (this was in front of the basin). She then went inside the toilet and did not see anything else. She also saw Ms Sedidi ‘’beating the boys’’ and pinching and slapping them, outside and in the toilet.. She ‘’heard others talk of it’’ and saw her once beating Botshelo.
The third witness Katlego Tshukudu testified that she came from work on 3 June 2024 and asked her child (Botshelo) what was going on (after her mother told her to ask him). He told her that Ms. Sedidi assaulted him and told him to go to the girls toilet and slapped him as he ‘’made noise’’ in the class.
According to Ms Tshukudu, she informed her mother of this and said she was going to school but her mother told her ‘talk to your brother first’’. She did this and he phoned the school but the phone was not answered. On 6 June 2024 a similar incident happened. When Botshelo came from school, he was crying and said ‘’Ms Sedidi threw me out of the class and said I was making noise again and I must face the wall’. He also told her that Ms Sedidi went to the office and when she returned she said ‘’face the wall and she held my head with two hands and pushed me to the wall’’. She again reported this to her brother, who sent an email but he got no response.
Ms Tshukudu submitted that she then reported the incident to the Principal and told him what occurred and made a statement.
The fourth witness Aphiwe Nxumalo testified that Ms Sedidi ‘’assaulted and clapped us’’. She ‘’slapped us on our cheeks when we were naughty’’. They ‘’were naughty’’ as he was talking to his friend, Tshukudu. He stated that Ms Sedidi ‘’held our collars and sent us out of class’’. took us to the girls toilet and ‘’slapped us five times’’ and then sent them back to class. Their classmates ‘were surprised’’ to see them crying.
The fifth witness Mpho Serubele testified that she is in Grade 5 now (2026). She returned from the toilet and saw Ms Sedidi ‘’bumpd’’ Tshukudu against the wall. Tshukudu was alone outside and started crying outside. She cannot recall if he was still crying when he went inside.
When she went outside, Tshukudu was with Aphiwe.

Analysis of evidence and arguments

I must determine if the respondent committed an unfair labour practice when imposing the sanctions of a final written warning and a 2-month unpaid suspension.
Section 186 (2) (b) of the LRA defines an unfair labour practice as follows:

(2) Unfair labour practice means any unfair act or omission that arises between an employer and an employee involving –

(b) the unfair suspension of an employee or any other unfair disciplinary action short of dismissal in respect of an employee’’

It is trite law that the onus in an unfair labour practice is on an applicant to prove that the conduct complained of, in this matter the imposing of the sanctions, constituted an unfair labour practise. (Buffalo City Public FET College v CCMA and others (P372/12) (2016) ZALCPE (handed down on 4/11/2016).
The charges are set out (supra paragraph 6).
The applicant testified that 3 June 2024 was her birthday and that the class sang for her which she stopped after a while but Botshelo Tshukudu and Aphiwe Numalo continued. They eventually stopped singing and they continued with the days’ work. At some point she left the class in order to make copies in the office and upon returning after brief period, she found Botshelo. Aphiwe, Mujalefa. Quasane and Simon standing and running/sliding around in class and she told them to go outside the class and face the wall next to the class.
According to the applicant she again left the class to collect the copies from the office and upon returning was behind the boys facing the wall and they did not see herand found Botshelo was poking the learners who were standing to his left and right hand side. She walked next to him and said ‘’is this how you face the wall”’. She left them outside and returned to the class and continued working. She then again went outside to talk to the learners and told them they are disrupting her and asked why they did so and spoiled her birthday. She was angry and reprimanded them whereafter they went into the class and they continued to work until the end of the day.
The applicant denied pushing anyone against the wall. During cross-examination it was repeatedly put to the applicant ( and repeatedly denied) that she slapped the learners ‘’against their cheeks’ and at some point it was put to her ‘’that it was six times’’ and against ‘’both cheeks’’. The charge however, made no mention of the number of times the alleged ‘’slapping against the cheeks’ occurred nor that such ‘’was against both cheeks’’ . The applicant conceded during cross-examination that she showed Botshelo how to face the wall by putting her hand against his back and saying ‘’this is how you face the wall’’ and turned him towards the wall.
Strangely, as this did not form part of the first charge, it was put to the applicant that on her birthday ( 3 June 2024) she told Botshelo and Andiwe to ‘’go to the girls toilet’’ where she slapped them.
Regarding allegation 2, the applicant submitted that Bothselo again did not want to sit down and she told him to go outside and face the wall, she never told him to go to the toilet.
Three learners testified on behalf of the applicant, Mojalefa Nxane, Ramaboa Tutuetsang , Andisa Moroleng. At the time of the alleged incident ( 2024) they were Grade 3 learners and in the applicant’s class.
These learners testified in camera and were assisted by an intermediary and interpreter yet, was fluent in English and for the most part testified in English. They fully understood the difference between telling the truth and telling a lie, with a clear understanding of the consequence of lying. They also understood what it meant to take the oath.
The fourth witness Martha Josephine Moleka is an educator, whose evidence contributed nothing the merits, but was a character assassination of the learners, that I found unwarranted and tasteless.
The crux of the evidence of the learners was that to confirm that it was the applicant’s birthday ( 3 June 2024), they sang ‘’happy birthday’’ and when the class stopped singing Botshelo and Aphiwe continued singing. They also confirmed the version presented by the applicant of leaving the class twice, first to make copies in the office and then to collect such.
The first witness, Mojalefa testified that upon returning the first time, he, Botshelo, Aphiwe, and Dipako were ‘’standing up in class’ and they were told to go out and face the wall. When the applicant left and returned the second time , Botshelo and Aphiwe were not facing the wall and the applicant ‘’showed them’’ how to face the wall. He stated that the applicant did not slap Botshelo or Aphiwe on their cheeks and did not push them against the wall.
During cross-examination of this witness, he explained (and demonstrated) how the applicant told Botshelo to face the wall. He stated ( and showed) that the applicant touched his shoulder, slightly turned him towards the wall and said ‘’this is how you face the wall’’. He also denied seeing any ‘’slapping’’.
The second witness Ramaboa testified that when the applicant returned the second time, Botshelo ‘’was disrupting the kids who were facing the wall’ and the applicant then said to Botshelo ‘’is this how you face the wall?’’. He did however, confirm that he was not part of the group of boys who were told to go outside but stated that the applicant did not slap Botshelo or Aphiwe against their cheeks.
During cross-examination the witness stated that the applicant did not tell anyone to go to the girls toilet. He stated that learners where told to go outside to face the wall and later conceded that he was told by Mojalefa that they had to face the wall as he stayed in class and did not see anything. He also stated that Diphako showed them how the applicant told\showed Botselo how to fact the wall.
The third witness, Andisa testified that when the applicant returned, she found Botshelo, Aphiwe, Mojalefa and Dipako running around and told them to go out and face the wall. He also confirmed that he was not part of the group that were told to go outside and did not go out and did not see what happened outside. He stated that he did not see any bruises on Botshelo.
During cross-examination this witness confirmed that he did not go outside with the group who had the face the wall and saw no pushing or slapping.
The respondent called five witnesses to support its case.
The first witness Botshelo Tshukudu testified that it was the applicant’s birthday on 3 June 2024 and as he ‘’kept talking’’ she told him to go out and to follow her to the girls toilet and there she ‘’clapped me three times against the cheeks with both hands’’. He stated that another learner, Tshapalang, saw him when he was in the toilet.
He further stated that on 5 June 2024 he asked for an eraser as he made a mistake, and the applicant told him to go out as he ‘was making noise’’. She told him to face the wall and then ‘’pushed’’ him against the wall. He testified that when she returned he was not facing the wall, and she then ‘’pushed’’ him against the wall. He stated that at first he was with Aphiwe and Ronelwa outside, facing the wall but the applicant told them to go back to class and he was then alone outside, facing the wall when she pushed him against the wall. The witness claimed that the applicant put her hand against the back of his head and pushed it against the wall.
During cross-examination, this witness stated that Mojalefa ( the applicant’s witness) was not part of the group of boys who were told to go outside
The second witness Tshapalang Amokela testified that she was at the toilet and saw the applicant ‘’pinch’’ Botshelo’s cheeks and that she ‘’slapped him 3 times against his cheeks. She stated that she asked permission to go to the bathroom and before she went into the toilet, she saw the applicant pinching his cheeks (this was in front of the basin). She then went inside then toilet and did not see anything else. She testified that she also saw the applicant ‘’beating the boys’’ and pinching and slapping them, outside and in the toilet.. She submitted that she ‘’heard others talk of it’’ and saw her once beating Botshelo.
During cross-examination this witness denied that on 3 June 2024, the applicant left the class twice in order to first make copies and then to collect such from the office. She confirmed not having any knowledge regarding the alleged incident on 5 June 2024 as she was in class.
The third witness Katlego Tshukudu testified that on 3 June 2024 her child (Botshelo) told her that the applicant assaulted him as she told him to go to the girls toilet and slapped him as he ‘’made noise’’ in the class. She stated that on 6 June 2024 a similar incident happened as Botshelo came from school, crying and said ‘’Ms Sedidi threw me out of the class and said I was making noise again and I must face the wall’. He also told her that Ms Sedidi went to the office and when she returned she said ‘’face the wall and she held my head with two hands and pushed me to the wall’’.
During cross-examination, the witness merely confirmed that her version is based on what she was told by Botshelo.
The fourth witness Aphiwe Nxumalo testified that the applicant ‘’assaulted us and clapped us’’ and also ‘’slapped us on our cheeks when we were naughty’’. He stated that ‘’we were naughty’’ as he was talking to his friend, Tshukudu and that the applicant ‘’held our collars and sent us out of class’’. He claimed that the applicant ‘’took us to the girls toilet and slapped us five times’’ and then sent them back to class. Their classmates ‘were surprised’’ to see them crying.
During cross-examination, the witness conceded regarding charge 1 that 3 June 2024 was the applicant’s birthday but stated that he ‘’could not recall what happened’’ and ‘’was not sure’’ if they were in the class the whole day. He later however, stated that they were sent out of class and had to face the wall. He confirmed that during evidence he stated that they went to the girls toilets. He claimed that the first time they were chased out and taken to the girls bathroom and the second time, had to face the wall. Later he stated that on 3 June 2024 they were sent out and had to face the wall which was when the applicant ‘’banged Tshukudu against the wall’’ but admitted that he did not see such but was told of such by Tshukudu.
The fifth witness Mpho Serubele testified that she returned from the toilet and saw the applicant ‘’bump’’ Tshukudu (who was alone outside) against the wall and that he started crying outside. She cannot recall if he was still crying when he went inside. She stated that when she went outside, Tshukudu was with Aphiwe.
During cross-examination, the witness stated that only Tshukudu and Aphiwe were sent out and could not recall if there were other boys. When asked how the applicant ‘’bumped’ Tshukudu she stated that ‘’she held the back of his head and bumped his forehead against the wall’’.
The version of the applicant is only supported by the first witness., Mojalefa, who was part of the group of boys who were told to go outside and face the wall. The applicant testified that she placed her hand against Tshukudu’s back and said ‘’this is how you face the wall’’ and turned him towards the wall. The witness Mojalefa stated ( and demonstrated) that the applicant placed her hand on Tshukudu’s shoulder and ‘’slightly turned him towards the wall.
Both the applicant and this witness denied the slapping of cheeks and pushing against the wall. They confirmed that learners were sent outside to face the wall and that no-one was told to go to the girls bathroom.
The other two witnesses called to testify in the applicant’s case were not part of the group who were sent outside and could provide no evidence as to what occurred or for that matter did not occur.
The evidence of the witnesses who were called to testify on behalf of the respondent was perplexing.
The first witness, Tshukudu stated that on 3 June 2024 he was told by the applicant to go to the girls toilet where she ‘’clapped me three times with both hands against the cheeks’’. He also stated that on 5 June 2024 he ‘’was pushed against the wall’’
Tshukudu claimed that Mojalefa was not part of the boys who were sent outside. This is strange as Mojalefa gave detailed evidence of the events of 3 June 2024 and how he was part of the group that was sent outside to face the wall.
The second witness Tshapalang testified that she was in the girls bathroom and saw the applicant ‘’pinching Tshukudu’s cheeks’’ and also ‘’slapping him 3 times against the cheeks’’. It is strange that Tshukudu did not testify about his cheeks ‘’being pinched’’. It is also strange that the respondent’s representative put it to the applicant during cross-examination that such slapping ‘’occurred 5 times.
As previously stated charge 1 makes no mention of the number of times the slapping allegedly occurred nor that such apparently occurred in the girls bathroom.
Evidence was led by the applicant’s witnesses ( and not disputed) that on 3 June 2024, she left the class on two occasions to go to the office to make and later fetch the copies. Tshapalang however, denied that the applicant on this day, left the class to do so.
Witness number four Aphiwe testified that the applicant ‘’assaulted us’’ and ‘’clapped us’’ and ‘’slapped us on our cheeks when we were naughty’’. He stated that they ‘’were naughty’’ as he was talking to his friend, Tshukudu. He claimed that ‘’Ms Sedidi held our collars and sent us out of class’’. He stated that the applicant took them to the girls toilet and ‘’slapped us five times’’ and then sent them back to class. Their classmates ‘were surprised’’ to see them crying.
This is in stark contrast to the evidence of Tshukudu who did not mention they were held by their collars and sent out. Aphiwe claimed they were slapped 5 times whereas Tshukudu mentioned 3 times. Tshukudu also testified that he was slapped against the cheeks and did not give evidence that he was with Aphiwe who claimed to have suffered the same fate. They also did not mention ‘’pinching of cheeks’’ as submitted by Tshapalang.
The fifth witness Mpho testified that she returned from the toilet and saw the applicant ‘’bump’’ Tshukudu ( who was alone outside) against the wall. When asked how the applicant ‘’bumped’ Tshukudu she stated that ‘’she held the back of his head and bumped his forehead against the wall’’.
The witnesses for the respondent either did not give evidence regarding the dates of the alleged incidents or where utterly confused when asked about such. Their evidence also did not support each other in crucial ways as pointed out. The evidence of the applicant and Mojalefa was that on 3 June 2024, boys were sent out due to being unruly and had to face the wall. Both stated (albeit in different words) that the applicant placed her hand against Tshukudu’s back and said ‘’this is how you face the wall’’ and turned him towards the wall. Mojalefa stated ( and demonstrated) that the applicant placed her hand on Tshukudu’s shoulder and ‘’slightly turned him towards the wall.
This is probable and does not create the impression that this was an attempt to underplay what occurred.
The evidence of the respondent’s witnesses on the other hand created the impression that it was not only not true (due to various contradictions and/or unsupported versions) but that evidence was given in such a fashion as to create a picture of serious assault. This is supported by evidence such as the alleged number of times the slapping occurred, use of the words ‘’assault’, ‘’pushed’’, ‘’pinched’’, ‘’holding of collars’’, ‘’pinching’’, ‘’bumping’.
There is no requirement in an unfair labour practise to show substantive and procedural fairness. In Mandla Skosana v CCMA and others (JR) 2160/15) (handed down on 6 March 2019) the Court held that in determining fairness, the proper context must be considered. There exists no separate requirement of procedural fairness in an alleged unfair labour practise. The proper enquiry thus entails whether the suspension of the benefit as had happened in the Skosana matter, was objectively justified and not irrational, arbitrary or mala fide. Contrary to an unfair dismissal dispute where a clear distinction is often drawn between substantive and procedural fairness. This is not the case when determining fairness in an unfair labour practise dispute and a more holistic approach based on all the evidence should be adopted.
The applicant had to prove, on a preponderance of probabilities, that she was subjected to an unfair labour practice.
In considering all evidence presented, it is my view that the applicant is not guilty of the charges levelled against her.

Relief

The applicant sought the upliftment of the final written warning as well as the 2 months period of unpaid suspension.
Section 193 (4) of the LRA empowers an arbitrator to determine an unfair labour practice dispute on terms he/she deems reasonable which may include ordering reinstatement, re-employment or compensation.

Award