A Northern Cape teacher who was dismissed for having an inappropriate sexual relationship with a 15-year-old pupil has failed in a bid to save her R18,000 a month job.
The teacher, who cannot be named to protect the identity of the pupil, took the provincial education department to the Education Labour Relations Council (ELRC), contending she “did not breach any rule as alleged by the employer”.
The arbitrator heard the grade 9 pupil had to undergo an HIV test and take Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP), medication given to individuals at high risk of contracting the virus to prevent infection. The teacher, who taught at a high school, faced two counts.
She was accused of dishonesty when interviewed by a labour relations manager about allegations she had been involved in a sexual relationship with the minor. The teacher was charged with contravention of the Employment of Educators Act for allegedly committing statutory rape.
She argued the rule she allegedly breached was not consistently applied and she was not “given a hearing on the alleged misconduct”. She had been teaching at the school since January 2017, earning R18,095 per month as a post-level 1 educator.
The teacher was dismissed on November 11 last year after a two-day hearing held in her absence in October. The ELRC arbitrator heard the teacher “was not present at the hearing and it is common cause she made no attempt to apply for postponement”. She approached the ELRC for “retrospective reinstatement”.
He went to [the teacher’s] place of residence several times. He confirmed having had sexual intercourse that night with her and without a condom. She gave him money to buy the morning after pills. It was his testimony that he had a romantic sexual relationship with [the teacher] and had sex more than once
— Education Labour Relations Council arbitrator
The teacher sought to have the ELRC hearing postponed as her lawyer was busy with other matters. However, the arbitrator dismissed the application for several reasons. The arbitrator also considered the alleged victim’s predicament.
“The records show the same/similar application was made before as submitted by the employer rep. After a lengthy process of a default award and a rescission application we are apparently back to square one. That, in my view, defeats the purpose of expeditious resolution of labour disputes. I also considered expeditious resolution should be balanced with fairness,” the ruling reads.
“The victim in the circumstances of the inquiry is a minor child who is expected from time to time to come and testify. This is taking much of his school time. I am of the opinion his constitutional right to education is being infringed. While it is expected of him to put much focus on his school work and future, further postponements on the matter is a damning distraction that cannot be taken lightly.
“In light of the foregoing, I am not persuaded the employee made a case for postponement and I am of the view it is not in the interest of justice to grant the application.”
A police warrant officer from the family, child protection and sexual offences unit told the arbitrator police were investigating a statutory rape case against the teacher. The pupil, now 17, testified he was “in a romantic relationship”.
“He confirmed he had a crush on her,” the ruling reads.
“He went to [the teacher's] place of residence several times. He confirmed having had sexual intercourse that night with her and without a condom. She gave him money to buy the morning after pills. It was his testimony that he had a romantic sexual relationship with [the teacher] and had sex more than once.”
The pupil also testified the relationship was characterised by jealousy and violence.
“He confirmed he slapped [the teacher] on the face because of jealousy that she was speaking to another man over the phone in his presence,” the ruling reads.
The pupil testified the teacher was upset when she saw his ex-girlfriend on his Facebook page.
“He confirmed he was chatting on WhatsApp with her regularly. He referred to her on WhatsApp as ‘baby’ and she responded positively. He told her he was in love with her and she was his ‘baby’ and she did not have a problem with that,” the ruling reads.
“He further stated he did not want to see her in any trouble regarding their affair and wanted to protect her.”
He also pointed out the school hostel where the teacher lived.
“He could see the bedroom and the bed they slept on when they had sexual intercourse,” the ruling reads.
The pupil revealed the relationship to another teacher who advised him to tell his parents.
“While they held the conversation, [the teacher] recorded everything said on his daughter’s phone. He stated the pupil further confessed to have had sexual intercourse with the teacher. He felt duty-bound as an educator to protect the minor child. He advised him to tell his parents about the affair but he was reluctant to do that,” the ruling reads.
The now-retired teacher testified he visited the child’s parents and found his mother in “tears” after the pupil confessed. The parents wanted to move their son to another school, the arbitrator heard. A social worker found the “relationship affected the learner emotionally”.
The pupil’s mother also testified and told the arbitrator about concern for her son’s health. She said he had to be moved to another school because he “did not want to go back to” his former school.
“She concluded they had unprotected sex. She also found out later that her son went to the hospital to test for HIV and he was given tablets to take for the whole month. She testified further his attitude changed completely. He was disrespectful towards them like never before,” the ruling reads.
“She lamented she sent her child to school to learn and not to get romantically involved with the teacher. Further that her child was emotionally affected by the affair and her heart was broken. She maintained the matter needed to be investigated thoroughly and consequences must follow. It was her wish not to have this happen again to any parent or learner.”
On Monday, the arbitrator ruled the teacher was “unsuitable for corrective discipline as she never showed remorse for her unacceptable conduct”.
“She was entrusted with the care of children. It was expected of her to be more circumspect in her conduct towards learners. Society must be able to trust her unconditionally as an educator,” the ruling reads.
“Due to the serious nature of the misconduct committed on or around January and February 2024, the employee is summarily dismissed from the employ of the department of education Northern Cape. Dismissal is mandatory under the circumstances.”
The arbitrator ruled the teacher was unsuitable to work with children in terms of the Children’s Act.
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.