Wesley Neumann's legal battle against the Western Cape Education Department heads to Labour Court

The long-running legal battle between Principal Wesley Neumann and the Western Cape Education Department (WCED) is set to be heard in the Labour Court on Wednesday, 17 September 2025, in what the Special Action Committee-Education (SAC-Education) is calling a David versus Goliath battle.

The case stems from the first wave of the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020, when Neumann, refused to reopen Heathfield High School, at the height of the pandemic.

He was then charged with misconduct on September 16, 2020, citing that he went against directives from the head of department at the time, Brian Schreuder.

An email by Schreuder had instructed that every Grade 12 pupil be physically at school every day of the week from August 3, 2020, until the commencement of their National Senior Certificate exams.

Neumann refused to do this, following safety concerns for staff, pupils and the broader school community, around the Covid-19 virus. Disciplinary proceedings commenced on December 3, 2020 and on October 11, 2021, Neumann was found guilty on six misconduct charges by the WCED.

While he was found guilty, Neumann was offered a demotion to department head at one of three schools, an offer he turned down and instead decided to challenge his dismissal.

The battle has been ongoing since then.

Neil Dublin, a member of the SAC-Education, defended Neumann, stating: “The attempt to paint Mr. Wesley Neumann as the party abusing the courts is both disingenuous and a distortion of the facts for political ends.

"It was not Neumann who set in motion a barrage of frivolous and duplicative applications. It was the Western Cape Education Department itself, deploying endless delay tactics in an effort to financially cripple and silence a people’s principal who stood for the safety of children during the deadly first wave of Covid-19.”

“Neumann deserves his day in court. His ‘failure to carry out a lawful order’ was in fact the fulfilment of a higher constitutional duty to safeguard learners and staff, a duty recognised even in Government Gazette 639 of 4 June 2020, which explicitly prohibited harassment or discipline of employees who refused unsafe work under imminent Covid-19 risks.”

He criticised the department’s disciplinary charges: “The charges of ‘disrespect’ and ‘incitement’ are the language of a bureaucracy attempting to criminalise dissent. What the WCED calls ‘incitement’ was in truth democratic consultation with the School Governing Body, staff, parents, and learners, the very heartbeat of community schooling. To criminalise those voices is to criminalise democracy itself.”

Dublin said Neumann was unfairly targeted: “It is telling that Neumann was singled out, dismissed, and pursued relentlessly, while dozens of other principals who took similar measures were spared. This selective targeting reveals the true agenda, not discipline, but silencing. Not fairness, but vengeance.”

SAC-Education emphasised the wider stakes: “This case is not only about one principal, but about defending the community’s voice, parental authority, and grassroots democracy in education… The mere fact that Neumann had the courage to act in the best interest of the children under his care makes him a champion of humanity.”

The WCED, however, maintains a starkly different position. Bronagh Hammond, spokesperson for the department, said: “Mr Neumann cannot claim that he is being litigated into submission when it is he who is the one launching numerous duplicate applications in various Courts in the apparent hope that one will eventually succeed.”

Hammond noted Neumann’s disciplinary record. “Mr Neumann has twice been found guilty of five charges, including being found guilty of a failure to carry out a lawful order, disrespect in the form of abusive or insolent behaviour, and misusing his position by inciting staff and learners on social media platforms not to report for duty or to attend school.”

She added that in June 2023, the independent Education Labour Relations Council arbitrator concluded: “There was not an iota of evidence presented by the applicant to support that he was unfairly targeted,” and that “the sanction of dismissal was appropriate.” Hammond said the arbitrator found the dismissal both procedurally and substantially fair, and that Neumann “was not entitled to any relief.”

Hammond also pointed out that Neumann had been offered a lifeline: “Mr Neumann was offered a very generous lifeline at the time of dismissal, provided by the then Provincial Minister Debbie Schafer, of an offer of a Head of Department post as an alternative to dismissal, with the opportunity to apply for a principal post after a 12-month period. He declined this offer.”

tracy-lynn.ruiters@inl.co.za

Weekend Argus