High school teacher’s dismissal for racial slur on girls upheld

A Northern Cape school teacher fired for using racial slurs against two teenagers has lost his appeal against his dismissal, with the Education Labour Relations Council finding his language to have been abusive. 

Gerhard Louw had been employed by the Northern Cape department of education since January 2015, and taught technology and automation at Kimberley Technical High School. 

He was subjected to a disciplinary hearing after two girls accused him of referring to two African pupils by the k-word, after which Louw was dismissed. 

He approached the council with his appeal, and the matter was unresolved through conciliation and went forward for arbitration before commissioner David Pietersen. 

According to the school’s workplace rule, regarded as valid, reasonable and known to Louw, racial slurs were prohibited. 

Pietersen ordered that the identities of the girls be protected during the process. 

The first, a grade 12 pupil named as Ms O, testified that she was part of a group of seven girls who, during the 2024 winter school, were moved from the Northern Cape High School hostel to the Technical High School hostel in Kimberley on the evening of June 23.

She said that on their arrival at the Technical High School hostel that morning, Louw had been one of the supervisors who told them he was not pleased at having girls move into “his hostel”. 

She said he had voiced his disapproval to their driver, Mr Tshabalala. She claimed that Louw had approached her and her friend Ms R while Tshabalala had returned to his vehicle. He accused them of dragging the school’s name through the mud and referred to them using the k-word. 

Ms O said she and Ms R were extremely shocked as they had not said or done anything to provoke Louw or cause him to swear at them. She said Louw had gone on to tell Ms R: “Al kan jy my so kak kyk, jy kan my vokol maak nie,” meaning: “You can look at me like I am shit, but there is f*** all you can do about it.” 

Ms O said there may have been a third pupil who might have heard the racial attack. 

During cross-examination, Ms O stood by her testimony and explained that they did not report Louw immediately to Tshabalala, but had instead told their families and the centre manager. She said Tshabalala advised them the following day to report it to the authorities when the schools reopened.

In this democratic South Africa, people like the applicant are anti-transformation and should not be allowed near children and the good citizenry of our society. His conduct on the evening of 23 June 2024 was despicable, to say the least

—  ELRC commissioner David Pietersen

Ms L, the third pupil who was nearby when the incident took place, also testified. She corroborated a large part of Ms O’s evidence, and confirmed that she was nearby when the applicant uttered the racial slur in reference to Ms O and Ms R, out of anger. She said he had yelled at them in the presence of his wife. 

In cross-examination, Ms L repeated the same story, added that Tshabalala was not informed immediately, but that she too had informed her family that same day. 

Louw was the only witness to testify on his own behalf. He explained that he was the hostel father at the time, that the hostel was full of boys who resided there for winter school, and that he found it inappropriate to have to bring in a few girls to live with the boys during that period. 

He said he told the girls that they would be chased away if they did not behave, just like the Northern Cape Hostel had chased them away. He said he did not remember using the slur when speaking to them. 

He said Tshabalala was the groundsman and responsible for security at the time. He said that neither the school management nor Tshabalala came to him to inform him about the allegations. He only became aware of the rumours some weeks later, and when the representatives from the Northern Cape education department arrived at the school to serve documents on him. He said he had not seen the girls again after that incident. 

In cross-examination, Louw conceded he had been angry at the time of his interaction with the girls, and admitted to accusing them of having dragged the school’s name through the mud. He said he had indeed told Ms R that ‘al kan jy my so kak kyk, jy kan my vokol maak nie’. 

However, he denied having uttered the racial slur. He offered to call his wife and a Mrs Van der Lith to testify in his favour, because they had both overheard the conversation. 

In his application against his dismissal, Louw said he had not uttered the words of which he was accused and wanted to be reinstated to his position as he felt his dismissal had been unfair. The department, however, contended that the dismissal had been fair because of the seriousness of the offence. 

Referring to applicable law, Pietersen found that the dismissal of an employee for a racial slur was permitted before turning to the substantive fairness of Louw’s case. 

Pietersen found that the two girls who claimed to be the victims of a racial attack by Louw had given credible testimony and been reliable witnesses. 

Louw, on the other hand, had been a sole witness, despite claiming to have had two other witnesses who could have corroborated his version. 

“This, by itself, also brings me to the principle of caution as provided for by the single witness evidence rule. Be that as it may, a mere denial by the applicant is not enough to sustain a plea of not guilty when faced by allegations of this nature,” Pietersen said, noting that usage of the k-word was “not just illegal and degrading to humanity and dignity of the learners, but it reminds us all of the horrible past of our country”. 

He said Louw had admitted to almost everything the learners had said, except his alleged use of the racial slur. 

“If the applicant was really truthful about this, surely his wife and Mrs van der Lith would not have deemed it troublesome to come to this council and to corroborate his version. The state of anger within which the applicant was, and the vulgar language he used against Ms R, makes it probable that he could have used the word **** as well. Why else would Ms R give him an ugly/nasty look if he did not say something untoward to them?” 

Pietersen said he was not persuaded by Louw’s denial that he uttered a racial slur against the two young African learners. 

He found that the Northern Cape education department had fair reason to terminate Louw’s employment. 

“In this democratic South Africa, people like the applicant are anti-transformation and should not be allowed near children and the good citizenry of our society. His conduct on the evening of 23 June 2024 was despicable, to say the least. I find the sanction of dismissal as a matter of last resort was appropriate under these circumstances.” 

He confirmed Louw’s dismissal.