Cape Town 150729. South Peninsula high school principal Brian Isaacs leave Wynberg court where Brian is on triall for a noise nuisance bylaw transgression. Picture Cindy waxa.Reporter Natasha P Cape Town 150729. South Peninsula high school principal Brian Isaacs leave Wynberg court where Brian is on triall for a noise nuisance bylaw transgression. Picture Cindy waxa.Reporter Natasha P
South Peninsula High principal Brian Isaacs’ own letter disproves his claim that his employers have a vendetta against him, writes Adiel Ismael.
In “ WCED’s vendetta against me is real”, Cape Times, April 13, Brian Isaacs maintains that the Western Cape Education Department has painted him as “a person who does not obey authority”, and that he is “a law unto himself”.
His behaviour is questioned. Ironically, his latest letter confirms both these claims; disproving the vendetta against him by his employer.
Isaacs claims that he has “always obeyed reasonable instructions”.
All employees are required to obey all instructions issued by their employers, and, importantly, as long as it does not contravene the country’s constitution.
It is not up to an employee to determine whether an instruction is reasonable. An employee who disagrees with an instruction issued by an employer should follow proper channels to change it.
It is not acceptable for an employee to simply refuse to execute such an instruction, even if it appears unreasonable.
Obeying only some and not all instructions issued by his employer opens him to misconduct, which was subsequently correctly pursued by his employer. Isaacs’ behaviour confirms that he is “a law unto himself”.
Isaacs further states that he is currently involved in three disciplinary hearings on what he regards as “irrelevant and petty charges”.
Violating the South African Schools Act is neither irrelevant nor petty. Isaacs should take note that his lambasting of his employer in the media – while awaiting the outcome of all three disciplinary hearings – again contravenes the code of conduct for public servants since an employee is instructed to use “appropriate channels to air his grievances or to direct representations”.
Criticising his employers’ policies in national media may result in further disciplinary action against him.
Isaacs justifies his transgression of the law by emphasising the success achieved academically by his matriculants. Although his school has delivered outstanding matric results, it does not warrant his transgression of the law. These two issues are disjoint, and should be treated as such.
If Isaacs cannot separate the two issues, then maybe “he is not fit to be in teaching”, as stated by his circuit manager.
If the WCED did not follow proper procedure when informing him about his suspension, then Isaacs should have raised the matter using appropriate channels. And if he has a case, then his suspension could have been dismissed based on his employer’s failure to follow their own prescribed procedures.
But, importantly, he had to follow protocol, and should not have pursued this matter in the media.
Isaacs further claims that many circuit managers do not treat teachers with respect, when he too is also guilty of disrespecting a pupil at his school by calling him “scum”.
Isaacs, as an educator for 39 years, should know that “one should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself”.
Based on Isaacs’ twisting of the facts as shown above, his claim of “trumped-up charges” could similarly be misplaced and, worryingly, may lead to further disciplinary action by his employer.
Finally, it will be in the best interest of Brian Isaacs to refrain from further lambasting his employer in public, and to tackle his matters using appropriate channels.
Adiel Ismail
Mount View
* The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Independent Media.
Cape Times