ELRC 858-20-21 KZN
Award Date:
25 August 2021
Text
Case No ELRC 858-20-21 KZN
In the matter between
NATU O B O NTULI S Z Applicant
and
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION: KZN 1st Respondent
Ms ZIKHALI T G 2nd Respondent
_________________________¬¬____________________________________________________________
ARBITRATOR : AS Dorasamy
HEARD : 13 AUGUST 2021
DATE OF AWARD : 25 AUGUST 2021
SUMMARY : Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 – Section 186(2) (a) - alleged unfair
conduct related to promotion
ARBITRATION AWARD
PARTICULARS OF PROCEEDINGS AND REPRESENTATION
1 This matter was set down for arbitration on 13 August 2021 at the Umkhuze District office, under the auspices of the Education Labour Relations Council (ELRC). Ms Lungile Zibani of NATU represented Ms Sebenzile Zanele Ntuli (applicant). Mr Sthembiso Mkhwanazi represented the Department of Education KZN (1st respondent), while second respondent did not attend. The parties were to submit written closing arguments by the 20 August 2021. The partys’ submissions and the applicable provisions of the applicable circulars relating to promotions were considered when I arrived at my decision.
THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE
2 I am required to determine whether the first respondent committed any unfair labour practice relating to promotion in not promoting the applicant to the post in question (HRM Circular Number 13 of 2020 Department Head post number 833 HOD Foundation Phase at Mbazwana Primary School), and dependent thereon the appropriate relief may be determined.
THE BACKGROUND TO THE DISPUTE
3.1 The applicant applied for the post, was short-listed and interviewed in the first process but was not appointed.
3.2. Ms Thabisile Goodness Zikhali was appointed to the post. The applicant prays that the appointments be set aside alternatively she seeks appointment to the post.
The respondents oppose the relief sought by the applicant.
3.3. All documents referred to had been made available to the parties at arbitration. The markings of the documents were standardised with the parties at the arbitration.
APPLICANT’S (EMPLOYEE) OPENING STATEMENT
4. This is a ULP (promotion dispute) pertaining to the non appointment and appointment into the post.
5. The process was to be conducted under Circular No. 13 of 2020. The applicant challenges both the procedural and substantive aspects and seeks promotion to the post. The panel short-listed and interviewed both the applicant and appointee in the first process. The applicant was not short-listed in the second process.
6 The applicant was candidate number 2 in the first process.
7. She lodged a grievance because candidate number 1 did not qualify to be chosen in the first process.
8. The District Grievance Committee (DGC) declared that the first process be re-done from short listing and candidate Ms Nompumelelo Thenjiwe Ngwane be excluded from the selection process.
9. The school was given 30 days to finalize the entire selection process. The applicant seeks that the first process to re-do the selection be declared null and void and that the applicant be selected as the candidate from the first process.
FIRST RESPONDENT’S (EMPLOYER) OPENING STATEMENT
10. The first respondent believes that all processes went well and that the applicant was represented by her union and he signed the recommendation for the appointee.
SECOND RESPONDENT’S OPENING STATEMENT
11. The second respondent was invited to the arbitration but did not attend.
SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT
EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT
THE SALIENT ASPECTS OF THE EVIDENCE ARE RECORDED BELOW.
Ms SEBENZILE ZANDILE NTULI
Ms Ntuli testified to the following effect:
12. She is employed at Mbazwana Primary School in the Foundation Phase and worked in the phase from 1992 to present.
13. She was interviewed for the first process and lodged a grievance because the number one candidate was not the right person to get the position.
14. She attended the District Grievance Committee (DGC) meeting with her union. She wanted the recommended candidate to be removed and she be the candidate for the post. Her NATU representative was Mr Ntshembeni. She got the result of the DGC after a long time saying that the process must be re-done within thirty days. It was done long after the thirty days expired.
15. She was not called for the second interviews and not short listed. She became aware that she was not short listed after being told by her union. In the first process she only grieved about the recommended candidate’s qualifications.
Under cross-examination by the First Respondent she stated as follows:
16. She acted as HOD in the phase. The DGC asked her representative the reason to breach the
scores of the Interview Process because he could not give information to candidates.
17. She knows the Union official Mr Mkhonto and he was part of the short listing and interviews and he
gave her information about it. She is aware of the processes of short listing and interviews.
EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF THE FIRST AND SECOND RESPONDENTS
18. The respondents elected not to call any witnesses.
CLOSING ARGUMENTS
19. The parties submitted written closing arguments that were considered in arriving at my decision. The parties except the second respondent must be complimented for submitting comprehensive arguments.
ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT
THE RELEVANT LEGAL PRINCIPLES
20 In Noonan v Safety and Sectorial Bargaining Council and Others [2012] 33 ILJ 2597 (LAC) it was held that there is no right to promotion in the ordinary course, only a right to be given a fair opportunity to compete for a post. Any conduct that denies an employee an opportunity to compete for a post constitutes an unfair labour practice. If the employee is not denied the opportunity of competing for a post then the only justification for scrutinizing the selection process is to determine whether the appointment was arbitrary or motivated by an unacceptable reason. As long as the decision can be rationally justified, mistakes in the process of evaluation do not constitute unfairness justifying an interference with the decision to appoint.
21. It is trite law that the courts will only interfere with the employer’s decision if it is grossly unreasonable.
The SGB must submit to the Head of Department a list (in order of preference- this was done) of at least three names of candidates for a post. The Head of Department must not, as was the case in the past, approve the first candidate on the strength of the recommendation only, but must make sure that the recommendation complies with the requirements (criteria) set out in the EEA. The HOD has an obligation to reject the list if it does not comply with the requirements of paragraph 3(b) of section 6 of the Powers of employers.
If the HOD is satisfied that the list complies with the Act, he or she may appoint any one of the candidates on the list. The preference of the governing body is purely an indication; the HOD has no obligation to follow that indication and may even decide to appoint the third name instead of the first one on the list.
22. In this case the applicant lodged a grievance against the first process. She together with her Union attended the DGC meeting. The DGC ordered that the process be re-done excluding the recommended candidate. In the second process the applicant was not short listed. The Interview Committee and School Governing Body (SGB) made a recommendation that Ms Zikhali Thabisile Goodness be appointed to the post. This was done. The applicant’s Union was present and confirmed the recommendation of the SGB.
23. In the present case the HOD considered the indication/ recommendation of the SGB and decided to appoint the highest scoring candidate, Ms Zikhali Thabisile Goodness. The appointment was not arbitrary or motivated by an unacceptable reason. The decision can be rationally justified, as the appointee was like the applicant a Black female, scored the highest mark and met the minimum requirements for the post. Therefore I do not believe that there are any justifiable reasons to interfere with the decision to appoint Ms Zikhali as HOD of the Foundation Phase at the school.
APPLICATION OF THE LAW TO THE FACTS
24. The promotion process of the respondent (the Department of Education) is regulated by HRM Circular NO.13 of 2020 documents and collective agreements.
The stakeholders in the education sector continuously appraise the procedure manuals and where necessary amendments are effected.
25. The following are of importance to direct parties in this sector that careful consideration must be given to the following principles that guide/ direct the promotion/ appointment process. Should a better understanding evolve then this would lead to a more expeditious filling of advertised posts and effective teaching and learning situation. It is clear from the number of disputes attended to by the ELRC that the education sector is saddled with promotion disputes that have the net result that the vacant posts remain in limbo until the matters are settled either by agreement or by awards.
26. The following are recorded in the promotion manuals.
2. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
This procedure manual is developed within the framework of the Personnel Administrative Measures (PAM) and replaces all other previous practices and procedure manuals.
OBSERVERS
9.1…….
14.1. Valid credentials, on the letterhead of the officially recognised
Teacher Organisations ………… must be produced by observers.
14.3. Observers must sign the declaration of confidentiality (HER 12).
15 ROLE OF ORGANISED LABOUR AS OBSERVERS
Only Teacher Unions party to the ELRC (SADTU CTU/ATU) also has a stake in the fair and just transfer or appointment of everyone in the system, as such:
15.1. Teachers’ unions as reflected above must observe the compliance with the legal prescriptions.
15.2 Observers are there to observe the substantive and procedural fairness are adhered to, and not to be directly involved in the processes of shortlisting and interviewing or to interfere with the appointment process by influencing any of the decisions during shortlisting, interviewing or recommendation phases.
18. CONFIDENTIALITY
18.1. Personal information pertaining to the individual applicant is confidential and should not be discussed outside the meeting of the interview committee or school governing body.
18.2. All members of the interview committee, and School Governing Body members must sign the declaration of confidentiality [EHR 12]. (my emphasis)
24. GRIEVANCES / DISPUTES
24.2 An aggrieved applicant may lodge a grievance on the attached Application Form (GR 1) with the Employee Relations component in the District.
24.3 A Union Observer may also lodge a grievance on behalf of its member/s by completing the attached form and submitting it to the Employee Relations component in the District.
24.4. A grievance should ideally be lodged within 7 days from the date when the
grievance arise.
24.8 A declaration of a grievance will not prevent the Interview Committee from
proceeding with the Selection Process unless it is advised to halt the proceedings by the District Grievance Committee.
24.9 Should the matter not be resolved to the satisfaction of the aggrieved party, a formal
dispute may be lodged with the ELRC using the prescribed procedures.
27. The first concern is that the promotion/ appointment procedure manual clearly defines the
process and the obligations of the participants in the process. All participants must sign a
confidentiality undertaking. Simply put, it means that all information in their hands are
privileged and confidential. As such any disclosure would render such information
inadmissible. There must be strict adherence to the confidentiality clause. This seems to
be the root cause of grievances and disputes at stages that the drafter had not envisaged.
28. There is no provision in the grievance procedure for candidates to initiate a grievance
before the outcome of the process is disclosed.
By that it means that the applicant/ candidate can only dispute the process with information that he/she has and not on information provided to him/her by the participants to the process.
29. The only exception is the Union observer who has officially and in writing indicated to the
chairperson of his/her intention to lodge a grievance.
30. Clearly the drafters of the procedures did not envisage the escalation of disputes but
attempted to provide a quick and speedy finalisation of appointment to advertised posts.
31. The parties are bound by the collective agreement and this includes individual educators
employed by the KwaZulu Natal Education department.
32. In any event the SGB only makes recommendation to the Head of Department who has
wide power in terms of the amendments to section 6 of the Employment of Educators Act,
1998 of which the following should be noted:
Section 7 (1) Section 6 of the Employment of Educators Act, 1998 is hereby amended by the substitution for subsection (3) of the following subsection:
(3) (a) …………..
(c) The governing body or the council, as the case may be, must submit, in order of
preference to the Head of Department (HOD), a list of-
(i) at least three names of recommended candidates; or
(f) Despite the order of preference in paragraph (c) and
subject to paragraph (d) the Head of Department may appoint any suitable candidate on the list.
(g) (iii) … appoint a suitable candidate temporarily or re-advertise the post.
(h) The governing body or the council, as the case may be, may appeal to the
Member of the Executive Council against the decision of the HOD regarding the
temporary appointment contemplated in paragraph (g).
(k) If no appeal is lodged within 14 days, the HOD may convert the temporary appointment into a permanent appointment in section 6 B.
33. Turning to the matter at hand it is clear that the Interview Committee was engaged/ monitored by the unions SADTU and CTU “ATU” and submitted its preferred candidate. They put their recommendations before the SGB who ratified the submission resulting in the SGB making a submission to the HOD that the appointee be appointed to the post. One must be mindful that the members of the SGB are elected by the school committee to look after the best interest of the school and the community and undertake their duties on a voluntary basis and without remuneration. They cannot be judged as an expert panel and perform their function under the guidance of the Department nominee. Therefore one can conclude that the persons entrusted with seeing that the process was fair including the union present did not share the concerns expressed by the applicant that of being unfairly treated.
34. The applicant’s union was a party to the process and approved the appointment of Ms Zikhali. I conclude that the appointment process to was fair. The application must fail.
35. As a consequence of the above I determine that the appointment of Ms Zikhali Thabisile Goodness be confirmed.
36. COSTS
I have considered the issue of costs and determine that no party acted frivolously or vexatiously in the proceedings and do no order of costs against any party.
AWARD
37.1 The application is dismissed
37.2. The appointment of Ms Zikhali Thabisile Goodness as HOD Foundation Phase of Mbazwana Primary School is confirmed.
37.3. There is no order as to costs.
DATED AT DURBAN ON THIS 25 DAY OF AUGUST 2021.
COUNCIL PANELIST: A S DORASAMY
In the matter between
NATU O B O NTULI S Z Applicant
and
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION: KZN 1st Respondent
Ms ZIKHALI T G 2nd Respondent
_________________________¬¬____________________________________________________________
ARBITRATOR : AS Dorasamy
HEARD : 13 AUGUST 2021
DATE OF AWARD : 25 AUGUST 2021
SUMMARY : Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 – Section 186(2) (a) - alleged unfair
conduct related to promotion
ARBITRATION AWARD
PARTICULARS OF PROCEEDINGS AND REPRESENTATION
1 This matter was set down for arbitration on 13 August 2021 at the Umkhuze District office, under the auspices of the Education Labour Relations Council (ELRC). Ms Lungile Zibani of NATU represented Ms Sebenzile Zanele Ntuli (applicant). Mr Sthembiso Mkhwanazi represented the Department of Education KZN (1st respondent), while second respondent did not attend. The parties were to submit written closing arguments by the 20 August 2021. The partys’ submissions and the applicable provisions of the applicable circulars relating to promotions were considered when I arrived at my decision.
THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE
2 I am required to determine whether the first respondent committed any unfair labour practice relating to promotion in not promoting the applicant to the post in question (HRM Circular Number 13 of 2020 Department Head post number 833 HOD Foundation Phase at Mbazwana Primary School), and dependent thereon the appropriate relief may be determined.
THE BACKGROUND TO THE DISPUTE
3.1 The applicant applied for the post, was short-listed and interviewed in the first process but was not appointed.
3.2. Ms Thabisile Goodness Zikhali was appointed to the post. The applicant prays that the appointments be set aside alternatively she seeks appointment to the post.
The respondents oppose the relief sought by the applicant.
3.3. All documents referred to had been made available to the parties at arbitration. The markings of the documents were standardised with the parties at the arbitration.
APPLICANT’S (EMPLOYEE) OPENING STATEMENT
4. This is a ULP (promotion dispute) pertaining to the non appointment and appointment into the post.
5. The process was to be conducted under Circular No. 13 of 2020. The applicant challenges both the procedural and substantive aspects and seeks promotion to the post. The panel short-listed and interviewed both the applicant and appointee in the first process. The applicant was not short-listed in the second process.
6 The applicant was candidate number 2 in the first process.
7. She lodged a grievance because candidate number 1 did not qualify to be chosen in the first process.
8. The District Grievance Committee (DGC) declared that the first process be re-done from short listing and candidate Ms Nompumelelo Thenjiwe Ngwane be excluded from the selection process.
9. The school was given 30 days to finalize the entire selection process. The applicant seeks that the first process to re-do the selection be declared null and void and that the applicant be selected as the candidate from the first process.
FIRST RESPONDENT’S (EMPLOYER) OPENING STATEMENT
10. The first respondent believes that all processes went well and that the applicant was represented by her union and he signed the recommendation for the appointee.
SECOND RESPONDENT’S OPENING STATEMENT
11. The second respondent was invited to the arbitration but did not attend.
SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT
EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT
THE SALIENT ASPECTS OF THE EVIDENCE ARE RECORDED BELOW.
Ms SEBENZILE ZANDILE NTULI
Ms Ntuli testified to the following effect:
12. She is employed at Mbazwana Primary School in the Foundation Phase and worked in the phase from 1992 to present.
13. She was interviewed for the first process and lodged a grievance because the number one candidate was not the right person to get the position.
14. She attended the District Grievance Committee (DGC) meeting with her union. She wanted the recommended candidate to be removed and she be the candidate for the post. Her NATU representative was Mr Ntshembeni. She got the result of the DGC after a long time saying that the process must be re-done within thirty days. It was done long after the thirty days expired.
15. She was not called for the second interviews and not short listed. She became aware that she was not short listed after being told by her union. In the first process she only grieved about the recommended candidate’s qualifications.
Under cross-examination by the First Respondent she stated as follows:
16. She acted as HOD in the phase. The DGC asked her representative the reason to breach the
scores of the Interview Process because he could not give information to candidates.
17. She knows the Union official Mr Mkhonto and he was part of the short listing and interviews and he
gave her information about it. She is aware of the processes of short listing and interviews.
EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF THE FIRST AND SECOND RESPONDENTS
18. The respondents elected not to call any witnesses.
CLOSING ARGUMENTS
19. The parties submitted written closing arguments that were considered in arriving at my decision. The parties except the second respondent must be complimented for submitting comprehensive arguments.
ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT
THE RELEVANT LEGAL PRINCIPLES
20 In Noonan v Safety and Sectorial Bargaining Council and Others [2012] 33 ILJ 2597 (LAC) it was held that there is no right to promotion in the ordinary course, only a right to be given a fair opportunity to compete for a post. Any conduct that denies an employee an opportunity to compete for a post constitutes an unfair labour practice. If the employee is not denied the opportunity of competing for a post then the only justification for scrutinizing the selection process is to determine whether the appointment was arbitrary or motivated by an unacceptable reason. As long as the decision can be rationally justified, mistakes in the process of evaluation do not constitute unfairness justifying an interference with the decision to appoint.
21. It is trite law that the courts will only interfere with the employer’s decision if it is grossly unreasonable.
The SGB must submit to the Head of Department a list (in order of preference- this was done) of at least three names of candidates for a post. The Head of Department must not, as was the case in the past, approve the first candidate on the strength of the recommendation only, but must make sure that the recommendation complies with the requirements (criteria) set out in the EEA. The HOD has an obligation to reject the list if it does not comply with the requirements of paragraph 3(b) of section 6 of the Powers of employers.
If the HOD is satisfied that the list complies with the Act, he or she may appoint any one of the candidates on the list. The preference of the governing body is purely an indication; the HOD has no obligation to follow that indication and may even decide to appoint the third name instead of the first one on the list.
22. In this case the applicant lodged a grievance against the first process. She together with her Union attended the DGC meeting. The DGC ordered that the process be re-done excluding the recommended candidate. In the second process the applicant was not short listed. The Interview Committee and School Governing Body (SGB) made a recommendation that Ms Zikhali Thabisile Goodness be appointed to the post. This was done. The applicant’s Union was present and confirmed the recommendation of the SGB.
23. In the present case the HOD considered the indication/ recommendation of the SGB and decided to appoint the highest scoring candidate, Ms Zikhali Thabisile Goodness. The appointment was not arbitrary or motivated by an unacceptable reason. The decision can be rationally justified, as the appointee was like the applicant a Black female, scored the highest mark and met the minimum requirements for the post. Therefore I do not believe that there are any justifiable reasons to interfere with the decision to appoint Ms Zikhali as HOD of the Foundation Phase at the school.
APPLICATION OF THE LAW TO THE FACTS
24. The promotion process of the respondent (the Department of Education) is regulated by HRM Circular NO.13 of 2020 documents and collective agreements.
The stakeholders in the education sector continuously appraise the procedure manuals and where necessary amendments are effected.
25. The following are of importance to direct parties in this sector that careful consideration must be given to the following principles that guide/ direct the promotion/ appointment process. Should a better understanding evolve then this would lead to a more expeditious filling of advertised posts and effective teaching and learning situation. It is clear from the number of disputes attended to by the ELRC that the education sector is saddled with promotion disputes that have the net result that the vacant posts remain in limbo until the matters are settled either by agreement or by awards.
26. The following are recorded in the promotion manuals.
2. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
This procedure manual is developed within the framework of the Personnel Administrative Measures (PAM) and replaces all other previous practices and procedure manuals.
OBSERVERS
9.1…….
14.1. Valid credentials, on the letterhead of the officially recognised
Teacher Organisations ………… must be produced by observers.
14.3. Observers must sign the declaration of confidentiality (HER 12).
15 ROLE OF ORGANISED LABOUR AS OBSERVERS
Only Teacher Unions party to the ELRC (SADTU CTU/ATU) also has a stake in the fair and just transfer or appointment of everyone in the system, as such:
15.1. Teachers’ unions as reflected above must observe the compliance with the legal prescriptions.
15.2 Observers are there to observe the substantive and procedural fairness are adhered to, and not to be directly involved in the processes of shortlisting and interviewing or to interfere with the appointment process by influencing any of the decisions during shortlisting, interviewing or recommendation phases.
18. CONFIDENTIALITY
18.1. Personal information pertaining to the individual applicant is confidential and should not be discussed outside the meeting of the interview committee or school governing body.
18.2. All members of the interview committee, and School Governing Body members must sign the declaration of confidentiality [EHR 12]. (my emphasis)
24. GRIEVANCES / DISPUTES
24.2 An aggrieved applicant may lodge a grievance on the attached Application Form (GR 1) with the Employee Relations component in the District.
24.3 A Union Observer may also lodge a grievance on behalf of its member/s by completing the attached form and submitting it to the Employee Relations component in the District.
24.4. A grievance should ideally be lodged within 7 days from the date when the
grievance arise.
24.8 A declaration of a grievance will not prevent the Interview Committee from
proceeding with the Selection Process unless it is advised to halt the proceedings by the District Grievance Committee.
24.9 Should the matter not be resolved to the satisfaction of the aggrieved party, a formal
dispute may be lodged with the ELRC using the prescribed procedures.
27. The first concern is that the promotion/ appointment procedure manual clearly defines the
process and the obligations of the participants in the process. All participants must sign a
confidentiality undertaking. Simply put, it means that all information in their hands are
privileged and confidential. As such any disclosure would render such information
inadmissible. There must be strict adherence to the confidentiality clause. This seems to
be the root cause of grievances and disputes at stages that the drafter had not envisaged.
28. There is no provision in the grievance procedure for candidates to initiate a grievance
before the outcome of the process is disclosed.
By that it means that the applicant/ candidate can only dispute the process with information that he/she has and not on information provided to him/her by the participants to the process.
29. The only exception is the Union observer who has officially and in writing indicated to the
chairperson of his/her intention to lodge a grievance.
30. Clearly the drafters of the procedures did not envisage the escalation of disputes but
attempted to provide a quick and speedy finalisation of appointment to advertised posts.
31. The parties are bound by the collective agreement and this includes individual educators
employed by the KwaZulu Natal Education department.
32. In any event the SGB only makes recommendation to the Head of Department who has
wide power in terms of the amendments to section 6 of the Employment of Educators Act,
1998 of which the following should be noted:
Section 7 (1) Section 6 of the Employment of Educators Act, 1998 is hereby amended by the substitution for subsection (3) of the following subsection:
(3) (a) …………..
(c) The governing body or the council, as the case may be, must submit, in order of
preference to the Head of Department (HOD), a list of-
(i) at least three names of recommended candidates; or
(f) Despite the order of preference in paragraph (c) and
subject to paragraph (d) the Head of Department may appoint any suitable candidate on the list.
(g) (iii) … appoint a suitable candidate temporarily or re-advertise the post.
(h) The governing body or the council, as the case may be, may appeal to the
Member of the Executive Council against the decision of the HOD regarding the
temporary appointment contemplated in paragraph (g).
(k) If no appeal is lodged within 14 days, the HOD may convert the temporary appointment into a permanent appointment in section 6 B.
33. Turning to the matter at hand it is clear that the Interview Committee was engaged/ monitored by the unions SADTU and CTU “ATU” and submitted its preferred candidate. They put their recommendations before the SGB who ratified the submission resulting in the SGB making a submission to the HOD that the appointee be appointed to the post. One must be mindful that the members of the SGB are elected by the school committee to look after the best interest of the school and the community and undertake their duties on a voluntary basis and without remuneration. They cannot be judged as an expert panel and perform their function under the guidance of the Department nominee. Therefore one can conclude that the persons entrusted with seeing that the process was fair including the union present did not share the concerns expressed by the applicant that of being unfairly treated.
34. The applicant’s union was a party to the process and approved the appointment of Ms Zikhali. I conclude that the appointment process to was fair. The application must fail.
35. As a consequence of the above I determine that the appointment of Ms Zikhali Thabisile Goodness be confirmed.
36. COSTS
I have considered the issue of costs and determine that no party acted frivolously or vexatiously in the proceedings and do no order of costs against any party.
AWARD
37.1 The application is dismissed
37.2. The appointment of Ms Zikhali Thabisile Goodness as HOD Foundation Phase of Mbazwana Primary School is confirmed.
37.3. There is no order as to costs.
DATED AT DURBAN ON THIS 25 DAY OF AUGUST 2021.
COUNCIL PANELIST: A S DORASAMY
ELRC 302 -20 /21 NW
Text