The arbitrator found his account to lack coherence and credibility.
A Technical Vocational Education and Training (TVET) college senior lecturer dismissed for sexual harassment has failed in his bid to be reinstated.
This follows a ruling by the Education Labour Relations Council (ELRC), which confirmed that his sacking was fair.
Central Johannesburg College Langlaagte Campus lecturer John Kubasa Vike was dismissed by the Gauteng Department of Higher Education and Training following a disciplinary hearing in May 2024.
Although he appealed the outcome, the sanction was upheld in July this year.
Vike challenged the outcome at the ELRC, seeking his reinstatement, arguing that the hearing chairperson was biased and that the dismissal was too harsh.
Student’s testimony
The case stemmed from an incident in April 2023 involving Zinhle Mkhize, a 31-year-old business management student.
Mkhize testified during arbitration hearings that on the morning of the incident, she attended Vike’s class but was the only student who did not receive her test script.
Vike told her he had forgotten it at home. After the lecture, he asked her to help carry papers to his office.
While walking together, he asked whether she was available over the upcoming long weekend.
Before she responded, he asked whether the cellphone number on her student file was correct for contacting her.
When she questioned why he wanted this information, Vike became annoyed and abruptly took the papers from her and walked off.
Upset, Mkhize sought help from another lecturer but was told nothing could be done.
Vike later approached her, pleaded with her not to report the matter, and stood uncomfortably close, prompting her to push him away.
A different lecturer later assisted her, and the campus manager, Mr Popela, allegedly discouraged her from reporting the incident, although a Student Representative Council (SRC) member advised her to give a written statement.
She initially delayed doing so.
Mkhize stressed that she had never had a personal relationship with Vike and felt violated by his questions.
She also claimed that afterwards, he avoided her, mocked the incident in class, made comments that forced her to leave lessons, and even encouraged other students to persuade her to drop the case.
Another lecturer allegedly warned her that continuing with the complaint might jeopardise her academic results because Vike handled exam marking.
HR manager’s version and Vike’s defence
Zitha Mkateko, the college’s assistant HR manager and the chair of the disciplinary hearing, testified that he had weighed all the evidence and relevant labour legislation before deciding on dismissal.
Mkateko stated that educational spaces must remain free of sexual or romantic advances from staff and pointed out that Vike showed no remorse even a year after the event, indicating poor prospects for rehabilitation.
Vike rejected the accusations, insisting the conversation was harmless and that some of it had been initiated by Mkhize.
He denied asking whether she was “available”, saying they merely spoke about weekend plans.
READ MORE: Western Cape school principal gets job back after demotion over ‘kwedini’ remark to his deputy
The lecturer also said she suggested he buy a smartphone to join the class WhatsApp group because he is difficult to get hold of.
He disputed Mkhize’s version that he forcefully took the files from her.
According to him, she voluntarily handed him the papers and became angry only because he refused to award extra marks or additional mathematics assistance.
He claimed that he was not in the habit of “dishing out marks”.
He further accused Mkhize of omitting key details in her testimony and claimed that the disciplinary chairperson had an improper relationship with the case initiator, compromising fairness.
ELRC findings
ELRC arbitrator Sally-Jean Pabst found the accounts provided by both Mkhize and Mkateko to be far more credible than the one presented by Vike.
According to her, Vike appeared to adopt an entirely “new and fresh approach” during arbitration hearings, deviating from how he had defended himself in the earlier disciplinary inquiry.
Pabst noted several issues with Vike’s testimony, saying his evidence-in-chief did not make “logical sense to me”.
“The fact that the applicant admittedly had been the one who had asked Mkhize to help him carry papers suggests to me that it had been the applicant who initiated their contact after class, hence if there had been no conflict during their walk, it makes no sense at all that he would allocate her mathematics marks to her anger.”
She acknowledged that Vike had not touched Mkhize, had not attempted a second advance after she rejected him, had not used profanity, and had not made an explicitly crude suggestion when asking to see her over the weekend.
She also pointed out that Mkhize was an adult and that the two were of similar age.
However, she emphasised that none of these factors changed the fact that intimate or romantic relationships between lecturers and students are strictly prohibited.
Pabst concluded that Vike “was not truthful during his testimony about how the conversation actually went” and, therefore, concluded that his dismissal was both “substantively and procedurally fair”.
“The applicant’s claim to an unfair dismissal is hereby dismissed.”
