A Soweto teacher dismissed for inappropriately touching an assistant teacher’s buttocks and attempting to kiss another has failed in an attempt to get his job back.
The teacher was fired by the Gauteng education department in November 2022 for “four counts of sexual harassment relating to (four) assistant educators”. The teacher took the fight save his job to the Education Labour Relations Council (ELRC), but the odds were stacked against him.
The former primary school teacher’s behaviour was put under the microscope in a ruling handed down by the ELRC last Wednesday.
The man had taught at the school since 2002.
The department accused him of “conducting himself in an improper, unacceptable and disgraceful manner by touching … an assistant teacher inappropriately on her waistline towards her buttocks, calling her baby and that she reminds him of his first wife”.
He was also accused of telling another assistant teacher “that she is beautiful and tempting and requesting her to visit you after school”.
According to the ruling, he told another assistant teacher he wanted to “pay her a visit during a long-weekend and [asked] her to kiss him”. He was also accused of giving “an assistant teacher directions to his house to visit and promising to buy her a new cellphone in December when he got [a] bonus”.
The department accused him of contravening the Employment of Educators Act. One of the assistant teachers testified that on November 11 2021 she had taken examination scripts to him for moderation when she was allegedly harassed.
“She met him in the hall, where he touched her waist. As he was talking to her about the amendments to the papers, he put his hand around her waist and slid to her buttocks. This made her feel uncomfortable. He asked her to go to his office, but she did not,” the ruling said.
“He [made] inappropriate utterances to her, such as ‘honey, I am missing you’. He also commented on how she dressed, saying she is killing him when she wore something short. Sometimes she laughed it off. However, she disliked the comments. Eventually, she reported him.”
The teacher also testified the teacher had sometimes made uncomfortable utterances in front of pupils.
“The utterances happened during school hours, sometimes in the presence of learners or other assistants. She never informed him that she did not like the utterances. However, in the first phase they informed [another teacher] that they were not comfortable around him. Her relationship with him was courteous.”
Another assistant teacher testified he “approached her while she was walking in the corridor. He told her she was beautiful and tempting him.”
“If he only told her she was beautiful she could have taken it as a compliment. However, ‘tempting’ was sexual as he looked at her differently when he uttered the words,” the ruling stated. She testified that on her birthday the teacher informed her “he wanted a cake”.
“She thought he meant her birthday cake she had brought to school. When she told him he would get him some, he said he did not want that cake but ‘ikhekhe la madoda’ [cake for men]. She realised he meant her [private parts].
“During cross-examination, she said she was afraid to report him because he was an HOD [head of department]. Tempting means he was craving her and this was inappropriate. He is old enough to be her father. She felt offended by his remarks. There was no other definition for tempting than that of sexual intimacy. He was proposing to her, which she found offensive. His actions were inappropriate.”
The teacher denied uttering the word “tempting” and insisted he said “she was beautiful”.
He insisted on having asked for a cake and leaving, not mentioning the type of cake he wanted. He denied inviting the assistant teachers to his home as his daughters were there over weekends.
He also denied inappropriately touching one of his assistants and offering to buy another a cellphone.
“He believed the girls were set up by the school SMT [school management team] because they did not want him to be principal. The teachers, administrators and the principal hated him.”
But arbitrator Mmamahlola Rabyanyana ruled: “The dismissal is substantively fair.”
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.