Teacher who ‘moonlighted’ as estate agent fails to quash R6,000 fine

A schoolteacher has failed to prove he was the victim of an unfair labour practice in the hopes of squashing a R6,000 fine for “moonlighting” as a real estate agent in Gauteng. 

Hendrik Lukas Gouws was fined after being exposed for selling and renting out properties for Remax between November 2022 and November 2023. He received payment without declaring the income.

Gouws, who has taught at the Unica School for Autism since January 2018, cried foul and accused the provincial education department of an unfair labour practice. He took the matter to the Education Labour Relations Council in a bid to have the sanction (fine), which he described as short of a dismissal, overturned.

Gouws told arbitrator Ntjatja Klass Aphane that he had submitted declaration forms to the department’s offices, “but the forms were not fully completed as the signature of the principal was missing and therefore [the] forms were not accepted”. He testified that he had “declared the remuneration outside his teaching work to a certain lady who told him that if he worked less than 40 hours, then there was no need to declare and handed back the form to him”.

Gouws said “he ultimately submitted a properly completed form signed by the principal” on November 2 2023. 

“There were other colleagues that were doing remunerative work outside the scope of employment, labouring under the impression of the 40 hours’ rule,” he testified.

He said his salary as a teacher was not sufficient to provide adequately for his daughter and cover the cost of living, “hence there was need for a second income to meet his financial obligations”. 

Gouw said he started working for Remax in December 2022.

He said the principal had told him to “declare second remunerative work, but he felt that he was victimised by the principal”. 

“During the cross-examination, he admitted that he was wrong to misrepresent facts that it was the senior personnel officer ... who prevented him from submitting the declaration for the second remunerative work and who advised him about what he called 40 hours’ rule,” the ruling reads.

Gouws got the school’s acting deputy-principal to testify on his behalf. The deputy told Aphane that Gouws was “under her leadership” when he earned the second income.

“At some stage she was called to the principal’s office where the issue of the second remunerative work of [Gouws] was discussed,” the ruling reads.

The witness testified that another staff member once asked her and the principal to deliver a “big envelope” to a departmental official who told them if a staff member’s extra work was less than 40 hours a month there was no need to declare second remunerative work. 

“During a staff meeting, it was discussed and emphasised that teachers must declare their second remunerative work ,” the ruling reads. 

The department’s representative Amelia Julie Perumal testified that she had received complaints about Gouws. 

“She received several complaints wherein it was reported that [Gouws] was in and out of the school, requesting to leave early and at times leaving during school hours to do private work,” the ruling reads.

“The investigation was conducted, and indeed it was discovered that he is doing remunerative work without permission. 

“There were two other educators that were doing remunerative work and they declared their second work to the [department] and approval was granted, but [Gouws] did not source approval before doing second remunerative work as a real estate agent.” 

Aphane dismissed Grouw’s application.

“The onus is on [Gouws] to prove an unfair labour practice relating to disciplinary action short of dismissal, and I am of the opinion that [he] did not discharge that onus,” Aphane ruled.

“I am satisfied that the [department] did not commit a practice that would constitute unfair action that would fall within the definition of an unfair labour practice ... Accordingly, [the] claim must be dismissed. [He] is not entitled to relief.”