ELRC79-22/23NW

IN THE EDUCATION LABOUR RELATIONS COUNCIL HELD IN VIRTUALLY
CASE NO.: ELRC 79-22/23 NW
In the matter between:-

DELANI ADVOCATE NQADU APPLICANT
and

VUSELELA TVET COLLEGE RESPONDENT
ARBITRATOR: MMAMAHLOLA GLORIA RABYANYANA
HEARD: 06 October, 08 December 2023 and 18 January 2024
CLOSING ARGUMENTS: 25 January 2024
DATE OF AWARD: 08 February 2024
SUMMARY: Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 –Section 186(1) – Unfair dismissal

ARBITRATION AWARD

DETAILS OF HEARING AND REPRESENTATION
1. A virtual arbitration was held on 06 October,08 December 2023 and 18 January 2024.The Applicant was represented by Ms C.S Mostert, an attorney from Theron Jordan & Smit Inc. The Respondent was represented by Mr K.Sechoaro, its senior labour relations officer.

2. The parties were given until 25 January 2024 to submit their closing arguments. The proceedings were digitally recorded. The respondent ‘s bundle is marked “R” and the applicant’s “A”

BACKGROUND TO THE ISSUE
3. The Applicant had referred the dispute of unfair dismissal to the Council for conciliation. The dispute could not be resolved and a certificate of outcome of conciliation to that effect was issued. The Applicant then requested that the dispute be arbitrated.

ISSUE TO BE DECIDED
4. I am required to decide whether the applicant was dismissed. In my determination I will consider if the termination of the applicant’s fixed term contract’s unfair dismissal i.e if the number of students decreased in 2023. If I find that the applicant was dismissed, I will determine if the dismissal was for operational requirements and if it was fair.

AGREED FACTORS
5. The parties agreed to the following factors as being common course:-
5.1 The Applicant started his employment with the Respondent on 21 February 2021 on a 6-month fixed term contract. The contract had been renewed every 6 months (5 times). The last contract was extended for 6 months provided that there were sufficient students, on 31 December 2022 until 30 June 2023 , He was employed until 27 February 2023;

5.2 The previous contracts did not have a suspensive condition of number of sufficient students;

5.3 At the time of her alleged dismissal, he earned a salary of R26 623.36;

5.4 He was paid a notice pay for March 2023;

5.5 The reasons for termination are not provided in the termination letter;

5.6 The Applicant received a letter of appointment for the period from 01 January to 31 December 2022.

5.7 Section 198B of the LRA is not applicable as he earned above the threshold.

SURVEY OF ARGUMENTS AND EVIDENCE

6. Delani Advocate Nqadu testified that he was PL1 Lecturer. He was on a NCV Programme under two departments, being the IT Department and the Electrical Department. He was offering electronic subjects for IT Department. For Electrical Department it was electrical principle and practice. Both were at Level 2 (first year students).

7. Around October 2022 he held meetings with other junior and senior lecturers to discuss allocation of subjects for 2023. He was allocated subjects and timetable for 2023. Around November in 2022, they had briefing meetings twice a week and during the last week of the year.

8. They had another meeting with the Campus Manager with all staff members present. The Campus Manager informed them that there were some of the lecturing staff members whose contracts would not be extended for 2023. He further informed them, that they would receive communication from his PA informing them whether their contracts would be extended or not.

9. He signed a contract extension in January 2023.He had full attendance in his classes. The Campus manager chaired the first meeting of 2023.There was also another meeting called by the IT Lecturers and which was led by the Senior Lecturer. The Head of Division and the Campus Manager were present together with all the IT Lecturers. They discussed challenges faced in the IT Department. They indicated that they should work in accordance with their strength. The Campus Manager made an example about him that as he is under 2 departments, he should be in one department of his strength.

10. They had a follow up meeting with the Senior Lecturer for IT Department. He opted to remain at the electrical department. Another item that was discussed was that Level 3 ( second year students) has two groups registered and Level 2 ( first year students) had 4 groups. Level 4 ( third year students) had one group. Level 4 was the only group with shortage of students.

11. On 31 January 2023 he was called to a planning meeting with his colleagues from electrical department, Senior Lecturer and Campus Manager. The Head of Division was excluded. The Campus Manager indicated all the changes that would happen on a piece of paper. He allocated subjects for everyone that was present except for him ( the Applicant).

12. The Campus manager asked him to remain behind and explained that he could see from the planning that there was nothing for him despite trying everything. He indicated that he was going to speak to someone at Matlosana Campus to check if there was a vacancy.

13. The following day he went to the Campus Manager to enquire if he had found him alternative employment. However, he was not present. He went to the Head of Division, who was shocked. She was not aware of Campus Manager’s decision. Both the Senior lecturer and Head of Division indicated that they should re-evaluate the timetables to establish if other classes could be allocated to him.

14. They were able to find classes for him without anyone being unutilized. The Head of Division then asked the Senior Lecturer to do it on a formal template and email same to her. His name was included in the organogram of the campus. On the same structure, there appeared two vacancies and/or vacant positions. It indicates that the two vacancies are for two senior lecturers. He enquired the basis he was selected to be dismissed with the DPA. She told him that there were not enough students on his specialty.

15. There were two lecturers that came after him in 2022.They did not appear on that structure. The DPA told him that they are standing in for the two vacancies of the two senior lecturers. Months after the Applicant was dismissed, the two senior lecturers were appointed and the two lecturers that were standing in for them are still employed.

16. During cross examination he conceded that he was not certain of the number of students enrolled for 2022 and 2023.He conceded further, that the number of periods allocated to lecturers is dependent on the student enrollment.

17. He conceded that the extended contract that he was offered in December 2022 was dependent on the number of student enrollments. However, that could not have been the reason for the termination of his contract because he had a full class of both electrical and IT when he started in 2023.He opted for electrical because it was his strength. The management should have informed them that if one does not have sufficient classes in the chosen strength, they should be taken back without losing job.

18. He conceded that they had 2 electrical and 4 IT classes before planning of the strength. After the planning there were no classes. He conceded that the number of students in 2023 declined to 93 as per R3-5. He denied that there was a meeting with the management addressing the number of students.

19. Late in January 2023, after he had signed the contract on 09 January 2023, during a meeting, the Campus manager informed of the student numbers. When he signed the contract, he understood that he will continue to work until 30 June 2023 if there were sufficient number of the students. There will be no work if the number of students were insufficient.

20. Teboho Moremoholo testified for the applicant that she is the Head of Department. The Applicant was in the NCV Department which she is supervising. She found him appointed as a lecturer in Jouberton Campus when she arrived at the Campus in 2022. She was transferred there due to PPN in January 2022.

21. She has been in the employ of the Respondent since October 2012 to date. Her job description entails amongst others: overseeing the administration of students such as registration process; induction and placement of students; Plan and manage academic timetable, training schedule and workload of staff; managing human resource, financial and physical resources.

22. She supervises all the Lecturers under the NCV Department which comprises of electrical which has 5 lecturers, IT with 4 lecturers and civil with 6 lecturers as well as the Fundamentals with 12 lecturers with the total number of 27 lecturers.


23. In 2023 academic year, the Applicant’s class attendance registers of students registered for Electronics Subject Level 2 which are systematically in his name for different groups dated 13/02/2023 with students' signatures are as follows:
23.1 Electronics Level 2 NCV2ITC Group A had a total number of 33
students registered;
23.2 Electronics Level 2 NCVITC Group B had a total number of
31students registered ;
23.3 Electronics Level 2 NCVITC Group C had a total number of 32
students registered;
23.4 Electronics Level 2 NCVITC Group D had a total number of 32
students registered.

24. The total is 128 for the Electronics group excluding EPP subjects. Therefore,
with additional EPP students, the number is more. The Electrical Department at Level 2 had 33 students for Group A, 34 students for group B, 33 students for Group C, 47 students for Group D, which totals 147 students.

25. The IT Department at Level 2 had 34 students for Group A, 34 students
for group B, and 34 students for Group C which totals an amount of 102
students. This brings us to a total number of 249.

26. There were 192 students as per the Records of Lecturers Allocation that was
registered for 2023 with reference to the Summary of Lecturers 2023 in A bundle. The spread sheet has allocation of subjects and student number for each Lecturer.

27. She approached the Campus Manager why he did not inform her in advance
about the Applicant ‘s dismissal. The response from the campus manager was that whether she liked it or not one or two lecturers in her Department must go because the Campus establishment exceeds the number required by PPN.

28. He informed her further that the Applicant was appointed as a substitute for
Mr Mookane who was acting as Senior Lecturer. Mr Mookane's contract as an acting senior lecturer had ended. He returned to his post then his substitute should be released. The campus Manager told him that staff members are obviously informed by their unions.

29. The TVET PPN Policy seeks to support the implementation of Section 20 of
the CET Act, authorizing the Minister to establish posts, within a structure that are remunerated in accordance with the Departmental budget and strategy. Post provisioning is the name given to the process of assigning teachers to schools across South Africa. It is a mechanism that aims to ensure that each school is allocated the correct number of teachers.

30. For operational requirements dismissal to be fair, the employer must prove that the reason is one based on operational requirements of the business. The proper procedure was not followed because she was not notified that he was identified to be released and that it was not discussed in meetings for awareness. She was surprised that only the Applicant was dismissed and not his counterpart who taught the same subjects.

31. During cross examination she conceded that PPN is an organized structure used by the College. There were 27 lecturers approved for PPN 2023. A change in the number of lecturers is dependent on the student intake. A261 Moshogi was allocated maximum or normal of 36 periods. She was not involved in the timetable allocation for 2023 which was done in 2022.She was trained in 2023 and was involved in 2024 allocation. The Applicant’s periods were allocated to Mr Mafadi who is permanent. The applicant is temporary. Mafadi has a full load of 36 periods.

32. Theophilus Shwahlane Masemola testified for the respondent that he is the campus manager. He is accountable for both supportive and academic structure. At the beginning of the planning phase, he met with the Applicant and other staff to discuss preferences of subjects they wished to offer in 2023. The Applicant opted for IT related subjects.

33. The Jouberton college had 40 lectures in 2022, comprising of :

33.1 1 Campus manager
33.2 2 HOD
33.3 5 PL3
33.4 32 PL1

34. Subsequent to the planning for 2023, during October/November 2022 which was inclusive of the Applicant, his contract was extended provided there were sufficient students. A head count was done for registered students in 2022 compared to 2023 which indicated a decline. In IT department all permanent lectures were given preference and full load and no students were without a lecturer.

35. A Senior Lecturer must have a maximum of 30 periods and minimum of 24 periods. Ordinary lecturers must have maximum of 36 periods and minimum of 30 periods.

36. During cross examination he was referred to the Lecturer namely Mr. Mohakane on A325 who appeared to have a total of 42 periods and lecturer Maphasa on A322 with 42 periods. He said that his controlled documents would state that he was not appointed for 42 periods. According to his knowledge and the document he designed, there was no Lecturer who had more than 36 periods. He denied that A 322,324 and 325 are final documents. He is the one who designed the final document. In the final document he was allocated 36 periods.

37. When a version was put to him that the authenticity of the document is not in dispute. He said the planning starts with the Senior Lectures, the ordinary Lectures and the HOD. The HOD would send him the draft planning, for him to do balancing. The meeting with him, HOD and Senior Lectures will follow to deliberate on the planning, make the changes where necessary. They will make the final planning and the final planning will go to the timetable. He will design and authorize the final document will be done after their final meeting.

38. The PNN made provision for 39 for their college. According to A36 there were 41 lectures in 2023. Therefore, there were 2 lecturers in excess. They allocate permanent lectures first. There number of permanent lecturers was sufficient to make 39 at that stage.


39. The students are allocated according to EFTS not by head counts. There is a pre-PPN and a post-PPN. The PPN was implemented in January 2023. In January the actual number of students registered was confirmed. He denied that there were more than enough students to accommodate the applicant.

40. There were temporary and permanent lecturers. There were movements made in 2021. Some lecturers were moved to acting Senior Lecturer posts. That made room for the Applicant to be employed in 2022. It was a plan based on PPN. In January 2023 the Senior Lecturer post was filled and everyone had to move to their positions according to PPN. They implemented the PNN in January the PPN which resulted in a fixed number of lecturers. The allocations were done according to PPN.

41. There are EFTS that need to be reached with a number of lecturers that needed to be allocated to a campus. When the Senior Lecturer returned, the periods had to be first allocated to him. Whenever a movement is made, the Trade Union is consulted. The meeting was held in his office they were consulted throughout.

42. The letter clearly indicated that his contract would only be extended if there was sufficient students .The last in first out (LIFO) principle would be applied to comply with the PPN Policy.

43. They attempted assist the applicant with alternative employment to teach in Potchefstroom or fill the position of a Lecturer who was on maternity leave and taught mathematics. The Applicant was not interested in both.

CLOSING ARGUMENTS

44. The applicant argued that it is clear from paragraph 3 of the respondent’s letter dated 27 February 2023 that the Applicant was dismissed. It reads thus : "It is against this background that this office will terminate your employment contract with immediate effect upon receiving this letter.."

45. Section 186(1) (b) of the LRA clearly define Dismissal as :-
(b) An employee reasonably expected the employer to renew the fixed term contract of employment on the same or similar terms but the employer offered to renew it on less favorable terms, or did not renew it."

46. The Applicant expected his fixed-term employment contract to be renewed as there were no prior proper consultations held in order to prove to the Applicant that there are not enough students to release him. His Trade Union was not consulted. The Applicant was dismissed for operational requirements due to the insufficient number of students as alleged by the Respondent and/or due to the PNN Policy.

47. In SACTWU & Others v Discreto (A Division of Trump & Springbok Holdings), the Labour appeal Court ruled that "for the employee, fairness is found in the requirement of consultation prior to a final decision on retrenchment." This implies that the retrenchment is a last resort. The ruling goes on to say that "this requirement is essentially a formal or procedural one, but has a substantive purpose. That purpose is to ensure that the ultimate decision on retrenchment is properly and genuinely justifiable by operational requirements or, put another way, by a commercial or business rationale."

48. In Buthelezi v Municipal Demarcation Board, the Labour Appeal Court ruled that the premature termination of a fixed term contract on the basis of operational requirements is substantively unfair, as such termination would be in breach of the employee's common law rights.

49. It is clear that the Applicant's dismissal was unfair. However, the Respondent indicated that the dismissal was due to the implementation of the PPN Policy. This is despite clause 6.2.1.8 of the PPN Policy on A106 stating that: "No employee shall lose his or her employment, disadvantaged or unfairly prejudiced in any way as a result of implementing the PPN Policy.

50. Moremoholo testified that there were more than enough students available for the Applicant to continue working. She was not consulted before a decision to retrench the applicant was taken and correct procedures were not followed. She reaffirmed that no employee may be dismissed due to the implementation of the PPN Policy. The Respondent’s witness indicated that one lecturer can also teach other subjects.

51. Section 189(7) provides that employers must select employees to be retrenched according to criteria that have been agreed upon by the consulting parties; or, if no criteria have been agreed upon, criteria that are fair and objective.

52. It should be noted that no criteria was discussed with either the Applicant and/or his Trade Union. The most objective and probably the safest means of section is "LIFO' (last in, first out)

53. Masemola indicated that this was the criteria which they allegedly applied, but he failed to adduce proof. Furthermore, Masemola failed to explain why 2 employees who started after the Applicant were still employed. A 324 and 325 proves s that there were more than enough students.

54. Masemola contradicted himself. He indicated that the Applicant was employed to fill one of the two vacant positions and that the Respondent was employed as a substitute for one of the Senior Lecturers. However, Moremoholo indicated that A 101 indicated that only 4 phases need to be implemented for PNN over a period of 3 years. There is no mention made of any pre- and post PPN Policy.

55. It is evident that the Applicant has proven on a balance of probabilities that he was dismissed due to operational requirements and that his dismissal was not substantively and procedurally fair. The Applicant seeks to be reinstated alternatively be compensated R319 480.32.

56. The respondent argued that the evidence provided by the two applicant witnesses should be rejected as they were unreliable .Moremoholo contradicted herself. The applicant conceded during cross examination that the Campus Manager and the Human Resource Manager consulted with him and explained why the respondents would execute a contractual clause that he signed for and understood what it meant.

57. There was no dismissal but the respondent acted in good faith and continued to pay salaries for 3 months for services that were never rendered by the applicant.

58. The applicant made concessions but attempted to refute the evidence presented by the respondent witnesses. The HOD, contradicted every version that she testified during exam in chief. The contractions question her credibility and reliability as a witness.

59. The respondent’s testimony provided a lot clarity with regards to organization structure and appointments that led to the applicant being appointed. Secondly, a clarity in the allocation of hours that for periods and a timetable.

60. The Respondent testified that there were no students without a lecture and there was no additional lecturer. Therefore, the remainder of the 3 months of the contract of the applicant would have been fruitless and wasteful expenditure to the organization. Therefore, the Respondent prays that the dispute be dismissed.

ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT

61. Section 192(1) of the Labour Relation Act 66 of 1995 as amended, provides that in any dismissal proceedings the employee bears
the onus to establish existence of dismissal. Therefore, the Applicant bears the onus to prove that he was dismissed. Should he fail to prove dismissal.

62. The Applicant contends that the termination of his extended 6-month fixed term contract on 27 February 2023 constitutes an unfair dismissal for operational requirement. The Respondent disputes that the Applicant was dismissed. The Respondent contends that the extended contract was based on the number of sufficient students in 2023.There were no sufficient number of students for the Applicant to continue working.

63. It is common cause that the last contract which was extended for 6 months, from 01 January 2023 until 30 June 2023 was based on a suspensive condition that there were sufficient students. The applicant conceded that when he signed this contract in January 2023, he understood that his contract would continue if there were sufficient number of students.

64. The extension of contract reads thus:

“please take note that your contract ending 31 December 2022 has been extended to 30 June 2023 provided that there are sufficient students.

65. The applicant’s understanding of what he signed for aligns with the contents of the contract. Therefore, there is no dispute about its meaning and purpose. In other words it is common cause that the contract would end earlier, if there are insufficient students or on 30 June 2023 if there are sufficient students, whichever occurs first.

66. It is against the applicant’s concession that I find his contention that he was dismissed for operation requirement to be misdirected and a fallacy. He was aware that the life of his contract was dependent on the sufficient number of students. Therefore, the decline in the number of students cannot constitute operational requirements even if I were to find that he was dismissed.

67. The procedural requirement that needs to be complied with when an employee is dismissed for operational requirements is therefore, not applicable for the reason I have mentioned.

68. Similarly, the applicant’s argument that his contract was prematurely terminated and that such termination constitutes dismissal for operational requirements is misplaced. It is in fact the opposite, i.e If it is found that there were insufficient students that would not constitute dismissal, however it would be the expiry of the contract by operation of law.

69. The applicant is disingenuous to conceal the fact that Buthelezi v Municipal Demarcation case that he had cited in his arguments actually provides for retrenchment of a fixed term contract employee before expiry of the term contract, provided the employer made a provision for that occurrence within the contract. This is relevant if I were to agree with the applicant that he was retrenched.

70. I will disregard the applicant’s argument that he had reasonable expectation that his contract would be renewed for the reason that it is a new issue that is not supported by any evidence led. In fact, at no stage during these proceedings was this ever raised. The argument is misleading and misplaced.

71. The Labour Appeals court in Enforce Security Group v Mwelase and 46 Others (DA 24/25) (2017)38 ILJ 1041 (LAC);(2017) 8 BLLR 745 (LAC) provided a clarity on the application of fixed-term eventuality contracts and affirmed that an employment contract can be terminated in a number of ways which do not constitute dismissal as defined by Section 186(1) of the LRA. Such as a fixed term contract entered for a specific period or upon the happening of a particular event. Once the event agreed upon occurs, there would ordinarily be no dismissal. It constitutes automatic termination of the contract by operation of law and not a dismissal.

72. Therefore, in applying the Enforce case, the only issue that the applicant is required to prove that would establish dismissal is whether there were sufficient students to enable him to continue with the contract until 30 June 2023.

73. It is common cause that the previous extended contracts that he entered with the respondent since 2021 did not bear a condition of sufficient number of students. Therefore, the contract which is in dispute is distinguishable from the previous ones. This distinction is paramount factor to consider in my determination of whether the applicant was dismissed or not.

74. Moremoholo conceded that PPN is an organized structure used by the College. It is not in dispute that the PPN was implemented in January 2023. This was when the actual number of students registered for 2023 was confirmed. This justifies why the extension of the contract was dependent on the sufficient number of students.

75. Planning for 2023 was made in 2022 but it based on projection. I find Masemola’s explanation that the actual number of students registered for 2023 could only be established upon registration. Hence, when he was offered an extended contract in December 2022, there was no certainty of the number of students for 2023. Another reason was that PPN was still to be implemented with the effect of the acting senior lecturer returning to his PL1 post.

76. It is common cause that in terms of the PPN permanent lecturers must
first fill all the periods. The temporary lectures fill the excess. I am persuaded that If there is nothing left for the temporary lecturers there will be no work for them when their fixed term contracts expire.

77. I agree with the applicant that the PPN states that its implementation should not result in job losses. It was against this background that Moremoholo was transferred to the respondent in 2022. A distinction between the applicant and Moremoholo ‘s status of employment or permanent and temporary lecturers in general must be considered. Moremoholo is a permanent employee whereas the applicant was on a fixed term contract.

78. The life of his 2023 extended contract was fixed for a particular period or the the eventuality (sufficient number of students). If the applicant’s contract was only dependent on the expiry of a certain period, the respondent would be obliged to retain him until the expiry of that fixed period to comply with the objective of the PPN of not prejudicing employees (resulting in job losses).

79. Masemola’s unchallenged testimony is that in 2021 there were movements made. In 2021, amongst others, one permanent lecturer was moved to an acting Senior Lecturer post. The movement made room for the appointment of the applicant in 2021 as he substituted the acting senior lecturer. This plan was in accordance with the PPN. This provides a plausible explanation why he was not employed permanently but continued to be on extended fixed term contracts.

80. In January 2023 the Senior Lecturer post was filled and everyone had to move to their positions according to PPN. The movement created excess numbers of lecturers required in terms of the PPN. The allocations were done according to PPN. The campus needs to have a fixed number of lecturers.

81. I am persuaded by Masemola’s testimony that there is a link between the implementation of the PPN and the number of students. The result of which was more lecturers with fewer number of students. This was exacerbated by the decline in registration of the students in 2023. The applicant conceded that the number of students in 2023 declined. Masemola’s testimony is that the EFTS need to be reached with a number of lectures that needed to be allocated to a campus. It was not disputed that students are allocated according to EFTS not by head counts.

82. According to Masemola’s version the PPN made provision for 39 for their college. According to A36 there were 41 lectures in 2023. Therefore, there were 2 lecturers in excess. They allocated periods to permanent lectures first. There number of permanent lecturers was sufficient to make 39. He denied that there were more than enough students to accommodate the Applicant.

83. His unchallenged testimony is that Senior Lecturer must have a maximum of 30 periods and minimum of 24 periods. Ordinary lecturers must have maximum of 36 periods and minimum of 30 periods.

84. He was referred to the lecturer, Mohakane on page 325 who appeared to have a total of 42 periods and A322 lecturer, Maphasa with 42 periods. He said that his controlled documents would state that he was not appointed for 42 periods. The authenticity of A322-325 was a common cause in as far as it was compiled by a Senior Lecturer, Chanell Magluwa.

85. Masemola disputed that he is the author of A322-325 and that it was a final document that he had designed and approved as the Campus Manager. Moremoholo testified that he was not involved in the timetable allocation for 2023. Therefore, her reliance that it was a final document by virtue of receiving it from Magluwa is not probable.

86. According to Masemola in the final document he designed, there was no Lecturer who had more than 36 periods. He denied that A 322,324 and 325 are final documents. His documents are quality controlled with the college footer. He is the one who designed the final document. In the final document that he had designed with a college footer, he had allocated 36 periods.

87. I refused the Masemola opportunity to go search for the authentic document that he said is the authentic document that he had designed for the reason I accepted his version to be probable.

88. The other documents presented by the applicant bear the quality control campus footer that he referred to except for these disputed ones. The applicant could not explain the difference. This is similar to relying of unsigned document. Such opportunity would have meant unnecessary further postponement. I find it probable that as the campus manager, he is the one who designs and approve the final document.

89. The applicant by his own version failed to persuade me that it was a final official document issued by the campus manager. Therefore, I have disregarded the pages which allegedly prove that other lectures were allocated excessive periods. In light on this, the Applicant has failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that there were sufficient students.

90. The applicant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that termination of his fixed term contract based on the occurrence of the agreed eventuality constitutes dismissal.

AWARD

91. The applicant was not dismissed but his fixed term contract of employment
terminated by operation of law.

92. The Council lacks jurisdiction over this matter .

Signed and dated at Pretoria on this 08th day of February 2024

M.G Rabyanyana
ELRC Panellist