Labour Court orders WCED to reinstate Heathfield High Principal Wesley Neumann

THE Western Cape Education Department (WCED) suffered a major blow when the Labour Court ordered it to reinstate Heathfield High principal Wesley Neumann with backpay after a lengthy legal battle. 

The matter concerned a 2023 arbitration award, which found that Neumann's dismissal was both "procedurally and substantively fair". 

The arbitrator found him guilty on five charges of misconduct following his refusal to reopen the school at the height of the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020. 

The charges brought against him included failure to carry out lawful instructions, disrespectful behaviour, among others. 

Neumann approached the Labour court seeking to review and set aside the award. The Labour Court on Monday found in his favour and overturned the arbitration award. 

"The applicant has been successful. He was dismissed more than three years ago and has had to pursue litigation to vindicate his rights.

"The first respondent is directed to reinstate the applicant to the position of  Principal of Heathfield High School, on the same terms and conditions of employment that existed at the time of his dismissal, with effect from 2 February 2026. The date of reinstatement does not affect the retrospectivity of the reinstatement. The reinstatement is retrospective, and the first respondent is ordered to pay the applicant the remuneration he would have earned from 20 May 2022 to the date of reinstatement," ruled Acting Labour Court Judge Coen de Kock.

The court found Neumann not guilty on all but one charge. 

He was found not guilty of failing to comply with instructions (Charge 2), of bringing the WCED into disrepute (Alternative 2 to Charge 4), of incitement (Alternative 2 to Charge 5), and of breaching the social media policy (Alternative to Charge 6). On Charge 3, the court found the applicant guilty of insolence, but not of gross insubordination as described by the arbitrator.

"The only misconduct established is a single act of insolence; the use of intemperate language in the letter of 26 July 2020, written during a period of extraordinary stress and uncertainty."

The charge was about the language used in a letter to a department official that referred to “pre-1994 methods” and “baasskap manner” which the court found was "ill-advised". The arbitrator found that it ultimately implies that the official was a racist or that it demonstrates the mentality of an apartheid racist boss.

Dismissal was not an appropriate sanction for this misconduct, the court held. 

"The evidence of selective discipline, considered cumulatively across the charges, further undermines the proportionality of dismissal. Multiple principals participated in the same campaign, expressed similar views on social media, or engaged in comparable conduct, yet none were charged. Some were dealt with informally through “fireside chats”. The WCED’s own Director of Communications conceded that only the applicant was “on the radar”. The arbitrator’s finding that there was “not an iota of evidence” of unfair targeting is irreconcilable with this evidence. This selective enforcement of discipline, in circumstances where the applicant’s immediate superiors testified that they could continue working with him, weighs heavily against the conclusion that dismissal was an appropriate or fair sanction."

Judge De Kock said he considered the mitigating factors and the prevalence of fear and anxiety that existed during the pandemic, ruling that the arbitrator’s finding failed to properly consider the evidence before him.

"The applicant was under severe pressure and stress from learners, parents, the SGB and the community, as well as based on his own convictions about the threat to his, the administrative staff and learners’ safety. The school had recently experienced COVID-19 infections. A teacher had tested positive in June or July 2020. A member of the school’s cleaning staff who attended the same church as Ms Syce, had died in August or September 2020. Ms Syce testified that she herself experienced genuine anxiety about returning to school because of the risk to her mother and brother who had comorbidities. 

“The applicant was not suspended during the two years between being charged and dismissed; he continued to render services throughout. His performance rating improved from 2 to 3 during 2020. The matric pass rate at Heathfield High School improved from 76% to 84%. The Schools Evaluation Authority’s Chief Evaluator, described the applicant as “very professional” and found the school compliant with COVID-19 health and safety regulations when evaluated on 21 July 2020. The Commissioner himself observed during Ms Bydell’s testimony that he saw “nothing controversial in this report that is prejudicial to the applicant," court papers read. 

The judge said  a final written warning was the appropriate sanction for the misconduct established, effective for 12 months from the date of the applicant’s reinstatement.

Cape Times