Council dismisses former teacher’s claim that his job was intolerable

The Education Labour Relations Council has dismissed a claim for constructive dismissal filed by a former teacher who resigned in July last year after serving a three-month notice period.

Solly Rantho was employed as a teacher in January 2016 and his resignation last year from Ilanga Secondary School was not the first as he had previously resigned and then retracted his resignation.

After his resignation last year, Rantho referred a dispute to the council for unfair dismissal, alleging that he was constructively dismissed by the Mpumalanga education department.

Rantho alleged the department made his continued employment intolerable, which resulted in him resigning. Rantho asked that the department be ordered to pay him compensation.

Rantho testified that he was given subjects to teach that he was not specialising in, being life orientation and economic management sciences, and was expected to teach classes of more than 50 pupils, which resulted in him being stressed.

“Life orientation had chapters of a sexual nature and he was not comfortable with such topics, as the children would be laughing and be disrespectful when there are talks of sex,” arbitrator Mandlenkosi Mini said in summarising Rantho’s evidence.

Rantho further stated that when there was no principal at the school, the manner in which the administration was handled was stressful to him.

Rantho said due to the stress, he was referred to a psychiatrist. However, he was never admitted into a hospital or institution.

“The reason for not being admitted was due to a call he received from the circuit manager with a tone that was not right, which was threatening,” Mini said.

Rantho stated that he had to return to work before the time that the doctor had booked him, due to the threats that he received from the circuit manager, who he said was “a terrible person”.

Rantho testified about his application that was not properly handled by the department, as he wanted to be seconded to the department of justice in order for him to do his articles of clerkship.

Rantho said he visited the Mpumalanga head office where he was told that the office did not receive the application for secondment. He stated that he then visited the district office, where he was told by the director that he did not have his application and he would not put in a good word for him as he thought he should resign.

Mkhosazane Khanyile, a supervisor at the school, testified about the process followed when periods are allocated and stated that when this process was done, they did not concentrate on the number of pupils but on the number of periods allocated to a teacher.

This is to avoid an unhealthy situation in a workplace where employees who have become disgruntled and dissatisfied for flimsy reasons, simply walk out and thereafter claim a constructive dismissal.

Khanyile testified that Rantho had indicated that he was capable of teaching the subject that he was complaining about, life orientation, which he had been teaching since he arrived at the school.

She also testified that it was surprising to hear that the work was intolerable. Khanyile said even the letter of resignation did not indicate the intolerability.

“If there was a problem Rantho was supposed to involve other structures seeing that it was intolerable.”

Another witness, Maria Ratsoana, stated that Rantho had previously complained about a number of issues: that he was overworked, the environment was not good, he was going to pursue law, and he could not deal with pupils from Masakhane, an informal settlement.

The circuit manager responsible for eMalahleni, Betty Shoba, stated that when she visited the school and asked Rantho how things were, Rantho would say that teaching was not for him, as he wanted to explore law.

Shoba signed off the resignation without objection, as she was aware that Rantho never wanted to be a teacher, rather he wanted to be a lawyer.

Rantho testified that he did not follow any grievance procedure, as he knew that the process would be dealt with by the circuit manager and he would not be helped satisfactorily.

“This alone indicates an election by the applicant not to allow the (department) an opportunity to correct the conduct that was intolerable for the applicant, one can go as far as concluding that the department was not aware of the conditions that the applicant alleged,” the arbitrator said.

The arbitrator said on a balance of probabilities, continued employment was not made intolerable by the department.

“The evidence that was presented illustrates that the applicant wanted to have operations executed in the manner that he wanted. As he did not receive the secondment to his satisfaction, he became disgruntled and decided to resign.”

Citing a Constitutional Court judgment passed in February, the arbitrator said resignation must ordinarily be a last resort where reasonably available internal remedies exist.

“The court further guided that constructive dismissal requires proof that continued employment was objectively intolerable. The employee’s subjective belief or emotional distress is insufficient.”

Mini said the threshold for establishing intolerability under the Labour Relations Act was high.

“And so it should be. This is to avoid an unhealthy situation in a workplace where employees who have become disgruntled and dissatisfied for flimsy reasons, simply walk out and thereafter claim a constructive dismissal.”

Mini said employees should refrain from hastily resigning and then arguing that the employment relationship had become unbearable.