In late 2022, a South African educator, whom I’ll refer to as “Flora” to maintain confidentiality, reached out to me for assistance.

 

Having completed two separate contracts at distinct campuses, Flora found herself at a crossroads when the school chose not to renew her contract after the second term. A regular reader of my articles, Flora was aware of her entitlement to severance pay and consequently sought to engage my services to review her case.

 

Following a brief conversation with Flora, I realized that there was no documented evidence of her discussions with the headmaster regarding the non-renewal of her contract. Consequently, I recommended that she discreetly gather any information that could serve as valuable evidence should the matter be taken to court.

This response was precisely what I had hoped for, leading me to recommend that Flora formally initiate legal proceedings against the school. We filed the case in September, but the trial was delayed until February due to postponements by the committee in response to the severe outbreak at the end of 2022.

 

It’s important to note that severance pay does not need to be stipulated in the contract to be obligatory. Legal requirements need not be transcribed into a contract to be enforceable. The school was unequivocally mistaken in this regard, a fact borne out by the outcome of the case.

 

The first argument presented by the school’s legal team was the assertion that the two campuses were not affiliates, citing the distinct shareholders and legal representatives. They likened it to a McDonald’s franchise, where coincidentally, the campuses shared a name. We had foreseen this defense and had prudently captured screenshots from their official website well in advance, which listed all their campuses in China. This evidence played to our advantage.

 

Another contested point centered on the one-month interval between Flora’s consecutive contracts. We presented bank statements demonstrating that her salary remained uninterrupted, prompting us to question the arbitrator why the school would pay for an additional month if no services were rendered. After all, we argued, the institution was a business, not a charity. The bank statements swiftly clarified the situation for the arbitrator.

 

The final matter caused me considerable concern, as it was a surprise piece of evidence—a “release letter” Flora had signed, indicating there were no legal disputes between the parties. However, this document was solely in Chinese, with no equivalent English version, leading Flora to sign unwittingly, unaware it was a snare. We contended that the English and Chinese versions were wholly divergent, rendering the signature nonbinding since Flora was misled by the inaccurate translation.

 

The outcome was a complete victory, with a settlement of 95,897.84 RMB awarded, equivalent to four months of Flora’s salary, reflecting her tenure of just under four years with the school. Flora was exceedingly satisfied with the result. Should you find yourself in a similar predicament, please do not hesitate to reach out to me!