Read more
Phillipa Erasmus was found not guilty of failing to enforce the school's disciplinary code in relation to racism allegations.
Picture: iStock
After the collapse of racism allegations against Pretoria High School for Girls principal Phillipa Erasmus, she has been found guilty of allowing her husband to work for free to maintain the school’s gardens.
Erasmus was charged by the Gauteng department of education with three counts of misconduct, including allegations of racism levelled against her and others at the school earlier this year.
Racism charges dismissed by hearing officer
That charge – of failing to enforce the school’s disciplinary code – was dismissed by the presiding officer at a disciplinary hearing, identified only as Mr V Phephenyani.
That charge related to claims last July that 12 white matric girls had allegedly been sharing racist comments on a “whites only” WhatsApp group.
A subsequent independent investigative report by attorney Charles Mdladlamba recommended that action should be taken against the principal, deputy principal, two teachers, the estate manager, the HR manager and the acting principal.
It found the principal and HR manager failed to comply with their obligations and committed misconduct.
‘No substance’ found in key allegation
However, on the charge related to the supposed WhatsApp group of racism – which led to the 12 girls being suspended – Phephenyani found that there was “no substance from the employer’s claim against the accused”.
He found Erasmus guilty on a second charge of misconduct in connection with the appointment of a finance manager at the school.
The other guilty verdict was returned because Erasmus had allowed her husband, Mike Erasmus, to help manage the school’s gardens for no pay and to use the school vehicle – which was bought by the school governing body and not the department of education.
Department accused of shifting goalposts
Activist and lawyer Richard Wilkinson, who has written on the case after being briefed by concerned parents said: “Having finally abandoned the ‘racism’ narrative, the department has simply shifted tactics in its effort to remove Mrs Erasmus.
“Their approach can be summed up in a single line: ‘If we can’t get her for racism, we’ll get her for something else’.”
He added: “But in doing so, the mask has truly slipped. In the final analysis and at its core, this was never about racism. It was – and remains – about power and control.
“It is about the political capture of schools, no different from what has already occurred in countless government departments over the past few decades.”
Teachers union criticises process transparency
SAOU Teachers Union spokesperson Dems Nel said Erasmus was accused of racism and several unsubstantiated allegations were made that racism was present at the school.
“She was suspended from her position and the SAOU had to step in and refer a dispute to the Education Labour Relations Council to ensure that she was reinstated to her position,” she said.
Nel said after the department appointed a law firm to conduct an investigation, Erasmus was charged.
“The purpose of the investigation was to determine if there was racism at the school or not,” she said.
ALSO READ: Another Pretoria Girls High pupil suspended after video with ‘racial undertones’
“To date, the contents of the report have not been made public, and not even the charged employees have had the opportunity to see what the investigation yielded and to be able to respond.”
Nel said despite the fact that there were numerous allegations of racism at the school, Erasmus was never charged with racism. But she was charged with failing to implement the school’s code of conduct.
Erasmus was represented by SAOU in the disciplinary hearing and found not guilty on the charge of not implementing the school’s code of conduct.
Final sanction still pending
“It is true that she was found guilty of charge 2, which dealt with the appointment of the school’s financial manager as well as charge 3, which dealt with her husband’s involvement in managing the school’s gardeners and the use of the school’s vehicle,” said Nel.
“However, the process has not yet been finalised and we are still waiting to hear what the sanction will be. As a result, it would be unfair to elaborate on these charges at this stage.”
She said the presiding officer may consider possible sanctions in terms of Section 18(3) of the Employment of Educators Act 76 of 1998 that include counselling, verbal warning, written warning, final written warning, fine not exceeding one month’s salary, suspension without pay for a period not exceeding three months, or demotion.
“Upon receipt of the sanction, the SAOU and Erasmus will make an informed decision on whether or not to take the matter further to the Education Labour Relations Council to challenge the outcome and sanction,” Nel said.
The department and the South African Council for Educators declined to comment on the matter.
