Key Takeaways
- A teacher in the Northern Cape attempted to evade accountability for having a sexual relationship with a pupil by resigning immediately after being served with notice of a disciplinary hearing.
- The Education Labour Relations Council (ELRC) rejected the teacher’s resignation and ordered him to appear before a disciplinary panel, which ultimately found him guilty of misconduct and dismissed him.
- The ELRC relied on Labour Court and Labour Appeal Court precedents confirming that an employer retains the power to discipline an employee who resigns immediately after being served with notice of a disciplinary hearing.
- The teacher’s resignation with immediate effect did not terminate the employment relationship in the absence of acceptance by the employer.
- The ELRC commissioner found the teacher guilty of contravening the Employment of Educators Act by engaging in a sexual relationship with a pupil and imposed a mandatory sanction of dismissal.
Introduction to the Case
A teacher who resigned after being accused of having a sexual relationship with a pupil attempted to evade accountability by arguing that the Northern Cape education department no longer had jurisdiction to discipline him. However, the department rejected his resignation and ordered him to appear before a disciplinary panel. When he failed to attend, the Education Labour Relations Council (ELRC) proceeded in his absence, ultimately finding him guilty of misconduct and dismissing him. This case highlights the importance of holding educators accountable for their actions and the measures that employers can take to ensure that employees do not evade disciplinary action by resigning.
The Disciplinary Hearing
The ELRC commissioner, David Pietersen, was tasked with determining whether the teacher, Luyolo Mdze, had committed the misconduct alleged against him, and if so, to impose an appropriate sanction. Mdze was based at a high school in Galeshewe, Kimberley, and was accused of engaging in a sexual relationship with a 19-year-old pupil. The alleged acts of sexual misconduct were revealed on May 22, and Mdze was suspended and the employer referred the matter to the council for a formal inquiry. The department led evidence from the school principal, the pupil allegedly involved, and another pupil who witnessed aspects of the relationship.
The Evidence Presented
The principal, Samuel Myo, testified that four grade 12 girls had reported the allegations to him in May 2020. They told him that Mdze had been in a romantic relationship with a pupil referred to as TRL and that the relationship had been going on for some time. TRL denied having had a sexual relationship with Mdze, claiming instead that they had a boyfriend-girlfriend relationship. However, another witness, Ms EM, also a 19-year-old grade 12 pupil, testified that Mdze and a colleague had relationships with some of the girls and would smoke hookah with them at nightclubs. Ms EM stated that she saw Mdze and TRL kissing at the after-party of their matric dance, and that Mdze and his colleague took TRL and another girl to a hotel and spent the night with them.
The Ruling
Based on the evidence presented, Pietersen found Mdze guilty of contravening the Employment of Educators Act by engaging in a sexual relationship with a pupil. The commissioner noted that the department’s evidence suggested that the relationship was sexual in nature, despite TRL’s denial of any sexual activity. Pietersen relied on Labour Court and Labour Appeal Court precedents confirming that an employer retains the power to discipline an employee who resigns immediately after being served with notice of a disciplinary hearing. The commissioner also found that the teacher’s resignation with immediate effect did not terminate the employment relationship in the absence of acceptance by the employer.
Conclusion and Implications
The ELRC’s ruling in this case highlights the importance of holding educators accountable for their actions and the measures that employers can take to ensure that employees do not evade disciplinary action by resigning. The case also underscores the need for employers to have clear policies and procedures in place for dealing with allegations of misconduct, including procedures for disciplinary hearings and the handling of employee resignations. The ruling also emphasizes the importance of considering the evidence presented in disciplinary hearings and making informed decisions based on that evidence. Ultimately, the case demonstrates that employers have the power to discipline employees who resign immediately after being served with notice of a disciplinary hearing, and that such resignations do not necessarily terminate the employment relationship.
