Hugs and 'baby kiss' cost principal his job

A DISMISSED school principal has once again failed in his bid to return to his job after the Labour Court agreed his dismissal was fair.

The matter relates to an inappropriate hug and a request for a “baby kiss” to a volunteer acting as his personal assistant.

An arbitrator earlier confirmed his dismissal as being fair, but the principal, only identified as B, turned to the Johannesburg Labour Court in a bid to get his job back. 

According to the testimony, the complainant was accompanied by two colleagues when the applicant (B) approached her and requested assistance with proofreading letters.

After completing the task in the applicant’s office, he allegedly asked the complainant for a hug. The complainant obliged, but during the hug, the applicant reportedly squeezed her tightly, to the extent that she could feel his erect body.

He then attempted to kiss her forcefully. When the complainant objected to this, the applicant allegedly responded by saying he could settle for a "baby kiss”. 

The complainant’s mother, who worked as a general worker at the school, witnessed the incident through the window of the principal’s office.

According to her evidence, the complainant was facing the applicant, while the applicant’s face was turned toward the window. From her vantage point, she saw him leaning in toward the complainant in an apparent attempt to kiss her.

Alarmed by what she saw, the mother rushed to the office but encountered her daughter in the administration office instead. 

She then urged her to leave the premises. Upon returning home, the mother sent a text message to the principal, telling him that the her daughter intended to open a case of sexual harassment against him.

It was alleged that the principal's wife had offered to send “uncles” to pay damages for the alleged misconduct. The court was told that the mother and the applicant had a close relationship and that he had secured a volunteer position for the complainant at the school.

The principal testified that he and the complainant often worked late and he occasionally gave her a lift home. He blamed her mother for initiating the “false” allegations against him, claiming that she had previously made sexual advances toward him, which he had rejected.

The arbitrator earlier noted that the principal recalled the incident differently from the complainant and her mother. According to the applicant, the complainant entered his office to offer assistance. He then gave her two letters to proofread.

After completing the task, the complainant allegedly remarked that she deserved a hug and placed her hands around his neck while he was seated, with his hands resting on her waist. The applicant denied attempting to kiss her, arguing that the school was busy that day due to the issuing of school reports.

It had emerged that he sent the mother a text message after the incident in which he had apologised. But the principal said this was for keeping her daughter at school beyond normal working hours.

The arbitrator found the complainant’s evidence to be more credible and reliable than that of the applicant. Even based on the applicant’s own version of events, the arbitrator concluded that the conduct was inappropriate and unacceptable.

Cape Times