ELRC 416-21/22LP
Text
ELRC 416-21/22LP
Award Date:
10 February 2022
Case Number: ELRC 416-21/22LP
Commissioner: M.A. HAWYES
Date of Award: 10TH February 2022
In the HEARING between
M.A Kgasago
(Union/Applicant)
And
(Respondent)
Limpopo Department of Education
DETAILS OF HEARING AND REPRESENTATION
1. The case was scheduled for an inquiry for arbitration on the 8th December 2021 and finalized on the 1st February 2022. The arbitration was held online via Zoom.
2. The parties requested and were granted the opportunity to submit written closing arguments by the 8th February 2022. Both sets of written arguments were timeously received and my award now follows.
3. Mr. Thobja Monyai, a union official from SADTU represented the employee.
4. Mr. M. Matlou, a labour relations official, represented the employer.
ISSUE IN DISPUTE
5. Whether the Applicant’s dismissal on the alleged grounds of misrepresentation is substantively fair or not. Procedural fairness was not in dispute.
BACKGROUND TO THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AND COMMON CAUSE FACTS
6. The employer employed the employee as a Principal at Maratapelo Primary School, Mogodumo Circuit of the Capricorn District in Limpopo at the time of his dismissal.
7. The employer brought a charge against the employee that he had misrepresented his work experience in his Curriculum Vitae (CV) and his application to be appointed as a Principal at Maratapelo Primary School.
8. Various small bundles were utilized by both parties, and they were accessed online.
SURVEY OF THE EMPLOYER EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT
9. The Respondent lead the evidence of three witnesses the first of which was Mr. Mathabatha (Assistant Director in the Human Resources Department dealing with appointments and provisioning).
10. Mathabatha testified, inter alia, that the Applicant had indicated in his CV that he was appointed as an HOD, Acting Deputy Principal and Deputy Principal.
11. He further testified that the Applicant’s service record does not corroborate the Applicant’s CV that he once was an Acting Deputy Principal.
12. Appointments are made by the Head of Department and not the Principal of a school.
13. Mathabatha also testified that the information contained on the Applicant’s application to be appointed Principal differed from his CV.
14. The second witness was Ms. N.S Matlapu, the Principal of S.J van der Merwe school who testified that she came to know the Applicant when he was chairperson of the SGB and when he was later appointed as a CS1 educator at the school. In 2016 the Deputy Principals were Mr. Motimele and Khoza. She testified that in 2018 the Applicant was still working as a CS1 educator.
15. The third witness was Ms. M.A Mathole, the Principal of Mphachue Secondary School.
16. The witness testified inter alia, that the Applicant was a CS1 educator at her school from 2014-2019. The witness testified further that between 2014-2015 the school had a Deputy Principal (M.P Mahlatji). The Applicant was never delegated responsibilities of a Deputy Principal.
17. Mathole testified that she did delegate some duties to the Applicant along with other CS1 educators. Temporary delegation and temporarily acting in a position were two different things.
SURVEY OF APPLICANT’S EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT
18. The Applicant testified under oath and called no additional witnesses.
19. The Applicant denied making misrepresentations about the positions that he held.
20. The Applicant testified that S.J Van der Merwe had two Deputy Principal posts of which one was vacant. He was co-opted to perform Deputy Principal responsibilities. It is for that reason that he wrote on the application form and his CV that he was a Deputy Principal. He was appointed internally by Principal Matlapu.
21. The Applicant also testified that he was an HOD for 12 years although it was an internal arrangement.
ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT
22. The onus is on the employer to prove that the Applicant’s dismissal was substantively unfair.
23. The Respondent lead the evidence of three witnesses were that confirmed that the Applicant never acted in or held the positions of HOD, Acting Principal or Principal. I was impressed with the content and demeanor of these witnesses.
24. The Applicant’s service record corroborated the testimony given by the employer witnesses.
25. The best that the Applicant could muster is to testify that he was delegated to perform certain functions of an HOD, Deputy Principal or Principal (without official appointments) at the various schools. The Applicant did not clarify this on his CV and his application to be appointed Principal at Maratapelo Primary School.
26. The Applicant’s attempts to justify factually incorrect information is disingenuous in the extreme and amounts to a distinct misrepresentation of his work experience.
27. The Respondent has proven on a balance of probabilities that the Applicant’s dismissal was substantively fair.
AWARD
28. The Applicant’s dispute referral is dismissed.
29. No order as to costs is made.
MARK HAWYES
ARBITRATOR
Commissioner: M.A. HAWYES
Date of Award: 10TH February 2022
In the HEARING between
M.A Kgasago
(Union/Applicant)
And
(Respondent)
Limpopo Department of Education
DETAILS OF HEARING AND REPRESENTATION
1. The case was scheduled for an inquiry for arbitration on the 8th December 2021 and finalized on the 1st February 2022. The arbitration was held online via Zoom.
2. The parties requested and were granted the opportunity to submit written closing arguments by the 8th February 2022. Both sets of written arguments were timeously received and my award now follows.
3. Mr. Thobja Monyai, a union official from SADTU represented the employee.
4. Mr. M. Matlou, a labour relations official, represented the employer.
ISSUE IN DISPUTE
5. Whether the Applicant’s dismissal on the alleged grounds of misrepresentation is substantively fair or not. Procedural fairness was not in dispute.
BACKGROUND TO THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AND COMMON CAUSE FACTS
6. The employer employed the employee as a Principal at Maratapelo Primary School, Mogodumo Circuit of the Capricorn District in Limpopo at the time of his dismissal.
7. The employer brought a charge against the employee that he had misrepresented his work experience in his Curriculum Vitae (CV) and his application to be appointed as a Principal at Maratapelo Primary School.
8. Various small bundles were utilized by both parties, and they were accessed online.
SURVEY OF THE EMPLOYER EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT
9. The Respondent lead the evidence of three witnesses the first of which was Mr. Mathabatha (Assistant Director in the Human Resources Department dealing with appointments and provisioning).
10. Mathabatha testified, inter alia, that the Applicant had indicated in his CV that he was appointed as an HOD, Acting Deputy Principal and Deputy Principal.
11. He further testified that the Applicant’s service record does not corroborate the Applicant’s CV that he once was an Acting Deputy Principal.
12. Appointments are made by the Head of Department and not the Principal of a school.
13. Mathabatha also testified that the information contained on the Applicant’s application to be appointed Principal differed from his CV.
14. The second witness was Ms. N.S Matlapu, the Principal of S.J van der Merwe school who testified that she came to know the Applicant when he was chairperson of the SGB and when he was later appointed as a CS1 educator at the school. In 2016 the Deputy Principals were Mr. Motimele and Khoza. She testified that in 2018 the Applicant was still working as a CS1 educator.
15. The third witness was Ms. M.A Mathole, the Principal of Mphachue Secondary School.
16. The witness testified inter alia, that the Applicant was a CS1 educator at her school from 2014-2019. The witness testified further that between 2014-2015 the school had a Deputy Principal (M.P Mahlatji). The Applicant was never delegated responsibilities of a Deputy Principal.
17. Mathole testified that she did delegate some duties to the Applicant along with other CS1 educators. Temporary delegation and temporarily acting in a position were two different things.
SURVEY OF APPLICANT’S EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT
18. The Applicant testified under oath and called no additional witnesses.
19. The Applicant denied making misrepresentations about the positions that he held.
20. The Applicant testified that S.J Van der Merwe had two Deputy Principal posts of which one was vacant. He was co-opted to perform Deputy Principal responsibilities. It is for that reason that he wrote on the application form and his CV that he was a Deputy Principal. He was appointed internally by Principal Matlapu.
21. The Applicant also testified that he was an HOD for 12 years although it was an internal arrangement.
ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT
22. The onus is on the employer to prove that the Applicant’s dismissal was substantively unfair.
23. The Respondent lead the evidence of three witnesses were that confirmed that the Applicant never acted in or held the positions of HOD, Acting Principal or Principal. I was impressed with the content and demeanor of these witnesses.
24. The Applicant’s service record corroborated the testimony given by the employer witnesses.
25. The best that the Applicant could muster is to testify that he was delegated to perform certain functions of an HOD, Deputy Principal or Principal (without official appointments) at the various schools. The Applicant did not clarify this on his CV and his application to be appointed Principal at Maratapelo Primary School.
26. The Applicant’s attempts to justify factually incorrect information is disingenuous in the extreme and amounts to a distinct misrepresentation of his work experience.
27. The Respondent has proven on a balance of probabilities that the Applicant’s dismissal was substantively fair.
AWARD
28. The Applicant’s dispute referral is dismissed.
29. No order as to costs is made.
MARK HAWYES
ARBITRATOR