A Free State teacher who was dismissed after he failed to submit marks for classes he was teaching, was unsuccessful in his bid to reclaim his teaching position.
Tshediso Manyane sought relief at the Education Labour Relations Council (ELRC) after he was dismissed for misconduct and allegations of corporal punishment.
During the hearing, the school principal, Kenosi Richard Diphagoe testified that Manyane failed to submit marks for 12 classes, as a result, the school was unable to compile reports regarding the affected learners.
Before he was dismissed, Diphagoe said he wrote Manyane several letters addressing the issue and even spoke to his mother in a bid to rectify the situation before resorting to dismissal.
Manyane contended that the disciplinary proceedings against him were procedurally unfair, citing lack of witnesses and inability to secure representation.
However, the deputy chief education specialist who chaired the disciplinary hearing,Tlhabedi Mafoyane testified that the aggrieved teacher was given an opportunity to state his case and was further notified about his right to have representation.
Compounding his troubles, Manyane was already on a final written warning for failing to submit marks prior to these latest charges, which were issued within six months of the warning. This context was critical as Commissioner Carlton Johnson evaluated the evidence provided during the hearing.
Johnson analysed the evidence and arguments presented by all parties and noted that regarding allegations of corporal punishment, during the disciplinary hearing Manyane chose not to testify as there was a pending criminal case on the matter.
However, Johnson noted that the department of education had not sufficiently proven these claims, resulting in Manyane being cleared of that specific charge.
Regarding the second charge, Johnson said the school presented clear and coherent evidence that the marks were not submitted. Even more compelling was the fact that Manyane conceded that he failed to submit the marks in respect of all his classes.
Johnson said due to Manyane's admission, the inevitable conclusion to be drawn was that he had failed in his duty to submit all the marks in terms of the timetable imposed by the school.
"Having found the applicant guilty in respect of charge one, I must consider whether the sanction of dismissal was justified in the circumstances. On a proper analysis of the evidence, I am of the view that dismissal was completely reasonable and justified in the circumstances," said Johnson.
In addition, Johnson said Manyane was guilty of serious misconduct in that his failure to submit the marks had resulted in the affected learners not being provided with reports.
"This situation has a negative impact on the reputation of the school and leaners as parents are unable to assess academic progress. The applicant (Manyane) was on a valid final written warning at the time of this misconduct, and he was therefore fully aware that his employment was placed at risk in view of his disregard for the rules."
"The applicant is guilty of serious misconduct in that his failure to submit the marks had resulted in the affected learners not being provided with a report. This situation has a negative impact on the reputation of the school and learners and parents are unable to assess academic progress," read the ruling.
Johnson found that Manyane's dismissal was substantively and procedurally fair.