TVET college employee’s dismissal for sexual harassment against student upheld
· Citizen
A former Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) college campus manager has failed in his bid to be reinstated after being sacked for sexual harassment.
Peter Popela was fired in December 2023 following a disciplinary process that found him guilty.
Visit freshyourfeel.org for more information.
After losing an internal appeal in June 2025, he escalated the matter to the Education Labour Relations Council (ELRC), arguing that the process had been biased and that dismissal was too severe.
He also maintained that he was not guilty of the allegations.
TVET college student caught smoking marijuana
At a two-day arbitration hearing in May 2026, the student at the centre of the case gave detailed testimony about the alleged incident, which took place in August 2023 at the college’s Langlaagte campus.
She told the ELRC that Popela kissed her, touched her breasts and made her hold his private part without her consent inside his office.
The student explained that the incident followed an encounter days earlier.
On 24 August, she and two friends were caught smoking marijuana outside the campus.
Popela initially threatened to call their parents, but relented after asking a security guard if he should “forgive” the students, who had begun crying.
Five days later, on 29 August, she was again caught smoking marijuana, this time with a larger group.
Popela claimed he caught her “red-handed” with a rolled joint in her hand and instructed her to get into his vehicle, leaving the others behind.
She testified that when a security guard questioned the situation, Popela falsely stated that she was bleeding.
Account of sexual harassment
According to the student, once inside his office, Popela said he would contact her mother, but instead asked her to kiss him while she was pinned against the door.
She testified that he lifted her chin, kissed her, touched her breasts, exposed himself and forced her to touch him.
He then instructed her to unlock her phone and proceeded to save his number on it.
She further testified that he told her that next time he would bring money and condoms.
After leaving the office, she confided in a friend.
Shortly afterwards, police officers in a private vehicle approached them and asked what had happened.
They advised her to open a case, and she left with them.
The victim alleged another student informed her this was not the first time Popela had behaved in such a manner.
Under cross-examination, the complainant acknowledged that her police statement contained an error as the affidavit incorrectly stated that Popela touched her private part.
Popela’s version of events
An employee of the college, called by the Gauteng Department of Higher Education and Training, testified that Popela instructed her to contact the student’s mother after learning that a sexual harassment case had been opened against him.
The mother, however, declined to come to the campus.
Popela denied the student’s allegations and presented an alternative account.
He told the ELRC that the student refused to provide her mother’s contact details, prompting him to give her his own number to pass on.
He claimed this was so her mother could contact him regarding her “smoking addiction”.
When questioned about why he singled out the student and took her to his office alone, he maintained that it was because she had been found in possession of marijuana.
ELRC arbitrator rejects claim of unfair dismissal
In her ruling, ELRC arbitrator Goitseone Lesele raised concerns about inconsistencies in Popela’s version.
She questioned why he requested the student’s mother’s contact details when such information was already accessible through the college’s records.
She also highlighted that only the complainant was taken to the office for discipline, describing this as “inconsistent in his disciplinary measures towards students”.
Lesele found that Popela’s account did not make “logical sense” and concluded that the student’s version was “more probable”.
“He did not satisfy me by properly explaining his intentions at the time as having been anything other than making an advance on the lady,” she said.
The arbitrator ultimately dismissed Popela’s claim of unfair undismissal, upholding the decision to terminate his employment.