Panelist: Kuvonakala Chavalala Case No.: ELRC647 20/21GP Date of Award: 02 MARCH 2026

In the ARBITRATION between:

BONGI ERROL MTHIMUNYE
(Union / Applicant)

and

Department of Higher Education and Training
(1st Respondent)

Central Johannesburg TVET College
(2nd Respondent)

DETAILS OF HEARING AND REPRESENTATION

[1] This is an arbitration award between Bongi Errol Mthimunye (hereinafter referred to as “the applicant”) and Department of Higher Education and Training (hereinafter referred to as “the first respondent”) and Central Johannesburg TVET College (hereinafter referred to as the second Respondent). The hearing concerned an alleged unfair labour practice dispute referred to the Council in terms of section 186(2)(a) the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (LRA). It sat on several occasions and was finalised on the 26 January 2026.
[2] The applicant represented himself. The respondents were represented by Mr. Nkambule from the second respondent.
[3] The respondent submitted a Bundle of documents which was marked Bundle R. The applicant submitted a bundle which was marked Bundle A.
[4] Parties had to submit written closing arguments on or before 09 February 2026. Both parties submitted the closing arguments, albeit, respondent submitted on 13 February 2026. I condoned late submission of the closing arguments in the best interest of justice and have considered both parties arguments in the award.
[5] The hearing was held in English and it was digitally and manually recorded.

ISSUES TO BE DECIDED

[6] I am required to decide if the respondent committed an unfair labour practice against the applicant in relation to provision of benefits, if yes, the appropriate remedy.

BACKGROUND TO THE ISSUES TO BE DECIDED

[7] This matter has a protracted history of litigation. The applicant referred the dispute to the Bargaining Council in January 2021. The matter came before Commissioner Dandadzi, where the respondent raised a jurisdictional point relating to condonation. The parties presented their respective arguments, and the Commissioner ruled that the Council had the requisite jurisdiction, finding that the applicant only became aware of the dispute in January 2021.

[8] The matter proceeded to arbitration before Commissioner Mark Hawyes and was finalised. The award was subsequently taken on review and successfully set aside. The ELRC was directed to enrol the matter for a hearing de novo before a different commissioner. The matter then came before me for a hearing de novo.

[9] At the commencement of the proceedings, the issues were narrowed. The following facts were common cause:

a) The applicant was permanently employed by the respondents with effect from 1 April 2011 as a PL1 Lecturer and was stationed at the Ellis Park Doornfontein Campus. He was a lecturer in the Building and Civil Engineering Department teaching National Accredited Technical Education Diploma Courses (NATED Courses).

b) The applicant is no longer employed by the respondent, having been dismissed.

c) The applicant did not receive Integrated Quality Management System (IQMS) pay progression for the period 2013 to 2019.

d) Collective Agreement 5 of 2005: Integrated Quality Management System for Public FET College-Based Educators (the IQMS Collective Agreement) sets out the IQMS process and includes an assessment instrument as appears on pages 62–65 of Bundle A.

e) The applicant was paid IQMS pay progression for 2021 during 2022.

[10] The following issues remained in dispute:

a) The respondent’s version was that it had substantially complied with the Collective Agreement, albeit not perfectly, whereas the applicant contended that the respondent had failed to comply with the IQMS Collective Agreement altogether.

b) The applicant denied any failure on his part to comply with the prescribed process and contended that there was no justification for the non-payment of IQMS pay progression for the period 2013 to 2019.

c) Whether the applicant received IQMS pay progression for the 2020/2021 period.

d) Whether the respondent committed an unfair labour practice.
[11] The applicant sought payment of the pay-progression of 1.5% increase for the period 2013-2020.

REQUEST FOR AMISSION OF EVIDENCE

[12] The applicant made an application for admission of hearsay evidence of Mr Mdanisi who had testified in the initial arbitration before Commissioner Mark Hawyes. He had attached a transcript of the testimony of Mr Mdanisi to his application. The reason provided for Mr Mdanisi’s inability to testify was that he has since passed on.
[13] The respondent did not oppose the application.
[14] I granted the application for admission of hearsay evidence on the guidance of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act, No. 45 of 1988 (LEAA) and the findings of the court in the matter of Minister of Police v M 2017 38 IJL 402 (LC)

SUMMARY OF THE PARTIES’ EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT
This section only records the summary of the evidence that was tendered and not the verbatim testimony of the witnesses. The case was digitally recorded, and such recordings can be provided to the parties upon request.
Applicant’s case
The applicant called two witnesses who testified under oath and the summary is as follows :

First witness: Bongi Errol Mthimunye, the applicant
[15] The primary purpose of the IQMS Collective Agreement is educator development, with performance appraisal serving as a secondary component linked to pay progression. In terms of the provisions of the IQMS Collective Agreement, the IQMS entails a structured process, which briefly includes the following steps:
• Self-evaluation by the educator;
• The identification by the educator of a Development Support Group (DSG), comprising his or her immediate supervisor and a peer;
• A pre-evaluation discussion;
• Classroom observation of the educator;
• Observation outside of the classroom; and
• Feedback and discussion.
[16] The ratings and scores are recorded in the prescribed assessment tool, as reflected at pages 62-65 of Bundle A. Upon completion of this process, an educator who has achieved the requisite performance standard becomes eligible to receive a pay progression of 1.5% in the following year.
[17] The IQMS Collective Agreement also provides that IQMS Training be held and he recalled that he was requested to train the staff at Ellis Park in 2006, he alleged that Ms Skakane was present as an attendee.
[18] The applicant’s version was that the respondent failed to comply with the prescribed process set out in the IQMS Collective Agreement. He alleged that scores were allocated behind closed doors and he was excluded from the benefit without any apparent justification.
[19] The reason why he disputed that the process was conducted is because the greater part of the IQMS process is conducted during class while the learners are being taught. The respondent’s documents/spreadsheets (bundle R pgs. 1-7) suggest that the assessments were allegedly conducted on days when learners were not present on campus, which is improbable. Further, the said spreadsheets reflect that performance agreements were concluded during school holidays which is also implausible. In support of this contention, he referred to the timetables at pages 30–33 of Bundle A, which demonstrated that the dates reflected in the respondent’s spreadsheets could not have been correct. He submitted that the spreadsheets are self-contradictory because they purport to state that he, the applicant conducted the annual assessment, albeit on a day when schools had closed, yet the very same document purports to state that he did not submit the IQMS documents.
[20] The spreadsheets are highly questionable because they are riddled with mistakes including but not limited to the disability status, ages, genders and notches of the employees. Ms. Popela is also mentioned on the said spreadsheets while she was not a lecturer. She ordinarily would not be intitled to pay progression per IQMS Collective Agreement but may be entitled through PMDS processes as IQMS processes are for Educators
[21] Another reason he disputes the respondent’s compliance with IQMS Collective Agreement is that in 2020, paper trail was created without the IQMS process being followed. On 28 January 2021, the applicant addressed a letter to Mr Diago, the Administrator of the College, and copied Mr Plaatjie, the HR Manager at Central Office (Bundle A, pp 1–2), wherein he complained that the Ellis Park Campus had failed to follow the prescribed IQMS procedures and that management had created a paper trail without conducting the actual IQMS process. He stated in this complaint that the pre-evaluation minutes dated 27 October 2020 and the post-evaluation minutes dated 30 October 2020 (Bundle A, pp 3–4) were fabricated, as the meetings in question had not taken place. Ms Skakane confirmed that the meetings did not occur and that documents were populated merely to create a paper trail, as reflected in a WhatsApp group discussion (Bundle A, p 13).
[22] In November 2021, a letter was circulated to all staff at Ellis Park Campus informing them that, following a verification process, employees who had not received the 2013 IQMS payments would be remunerated (Bundle A, p 20). Lecturers were required to fill a spreadsheet with their names, PERSAL numbers and the years in which lecturers were not paid the IQMS. The applicant alleged he submitted his name but he was excluded from receiving payments while other employees received the payments.
[23] The situation was rendered more unfair by the fact that Mr Bauer and other lecturers, who were not physically present on campus during the COVID-19 alert levels in 2020, nonetheless received IQMS pay progression. In contrast, he remained on campus during that period and, according to him, placed himself at personal risk, did not receive IQMS pay progression.
[24] He alleged that in 2021 he did nothing differently in respect of the IQMS process, yet he received IQMS pay progression for that year. He believes that the only reason he got the money was because he referred the matter to the bargaining council. He referred to pages 72–75 of Bundle A, being the 2021 IQMS documentation, which reflect that only Mr Moyo had not submitted the requisite documentation and that the applicant had submitted his documents, receiving a score of 104. He further pointed out that the same document reflects that Mr Davids achieved a score of 106 despite allegedly not having had any classroom visits. His view was that these documents were prepared retrospectively in order to conceal irregularities in the process.

[25] Although his submission is that the respondent did not strictly adhere to the IQMS Collective Agreement, all documentation ordinarily required for purposes of IQMS such as tests, syllabi and lesson plans was duly prepared and kept in his subject files and were submitted by him and he was never informed of any outstanding documents to submit. He stated that these documents are required to be in place irrespective of the IQMS process, as they form part of institutional and DHET audit requirements.
[26] The respondent authored a letter on page 22 appears a letter to Mr Maaga advising him that his IQMS forms for 2016 are still outstanding, none such a letter was ever written to him during periods 2013-2020.
[27] The form which he was required to sign and submit to HR or to a Senior Lecturer (although, in terms of the process, it ought to have been submitted by the DSG) was duly submitted by him.
[28] He referred to the admitted hearsay evidence of Mr Mdanisi, who testified in the initial arbitration that in practice, they had merely completed and signed a form without following the prescribed process set out in the Collective Agreement. Mr Mdanisi indicated that he has signed the applicant’s form as the applicant’s a peer and would in turn request someone to sign his own. Mr Mdanisi recalled having seen the applicant submit the IQMS documentation on one occasion because they coincidentally submitted the forms at the same time. He testified that it would be difficult to witness other lecturers submit their forms because they did not accompany each other to HR for submission. Mr Mdanisi further confirmed that he had never signed any performance agreement.
[29] The applicant testified that the form in question is a single-page document which is submitted either to HR or to a Senior Lecturer. He stated that in 2021 there was a list of names for those who submitted. He countersigned next to his name and took a screenshot as proof of submission. He contended that this was the reason he ultimately received payment in 2021.
[30] According to his calculations, the respondent owes him an amount of R183,343.71 in respect of IQMS pay progression for the period 2013 to 2019. For him, the case is not even about the money but about justice.
[31] His view is that he was deliberately overlooked for IQMS pay progression as a result of having reported some wrong doings. In 2012 he reported the then principal, Mr Magene, for alleged financial maladministration, following which Mr Magene was subsequently dismissed. He conceded that firstly, he had no proof that Mr Magene was dismissed and secondly for the reasons he stated.
[32] He further stated that another reason for his exclusion is that he reported colleagues, including Mr Laka and Mr Matsila, as well as other lecturers who were allegedly registered for subjects which they were teaching and examining, contrary to policy. In December 2020, he reported alleged corrupt activities that were happening at the College to Mr Diago, the Administrator. In 2021 he reported Mr Chocho for allegedly providing answers to students during assessments. He contended that, people did not like him simply because he would report wrong doing.
[33] Under cross-examination, the applicant reiterated the evidence of Mr Mdanisi that lecturers were, in practice, completing and signing forms without conducting the full IQMS process as prescribed by the IQMS Collective Agreement, and that no classroom visits were conducted.
[34] He further confirmed that the completed IQMS documents had to be submitted either to HR or to a Senior Lecturer. He insisted that he had submitted his IQMS documents.
Second Witness: Seloane Lesiba Steve Trevor
[35] The witness testified that he is employed by the Department of Higher Education and Training and is based at Central Johannesburg College, Ellis Park Campus.
[36] He referred to the IQMS Collective Agreement and outlined what the IQMS process ought ideally to entail. In practice though, it was reduced to the completion of forms, which were then signed by the lecturer and peers and submitted to HR.
[37] In 2020, he served as a member of the Development Support Group (DSG). However, he does not recall attending either a pre-evaluation or a post-evaluation meeting as reflected in the minutes at pages 3 and 4 of bundle A. He further confirmed that the pre- and post-evaluation minutes form part of the documents listed in the IQMS checklist.
[38] He testified that he is among the employees who were not paid IQMS pay progression for 2013, notwithstanding the undertaking made in November 2021 that outstanding payments would be effected in batches(Bundle A, p 13).
[39] The IQMS Spreadsheet has a lot of mistakes including but not limited to the disability status, ages, genders and notches of the employees. Ms Popela is also mentioned on the Spreadsheet while she was not a lecturer. To his knowledge, Ms Popela is employed in Student Support Services and does not perform classroom teaching duties.
[40] Under cross-examination, he confirmed that IQMS forms are distributed to lecturers for completion and signature, after which they are required to be submitted to HR. Once the forms are submitted, the IQMS process is regarded as complete. He stated that he has previously been submitting such forms to HR and getting paid IQMS. He would not know whether other lecturers had submitted their forms unless he specifically enquired. He further testified that, at one stage, he signed the applicant’s IQMS forms as a peer but did not know what the applicant did with the forms thereafter.
[41] He stated that IQMS process was conducted during the period 2013 to 2020; however, it was not properly implemented in accordance with the IQMS Collective Agreement. Instead, lecturers would obtain the relevant forms from HR, complete them, procure the signatures of their peers, and thereafter submit the documents to HR as per checklist.

THE RESPONDENT’S CASE

First Witness, Lindiwe Skakane testified under oath and the summary of which is as follows:

[42] She testified that she is employed by Central Johannesburg TVET College as the Head of Department: Civil Engineering at the Ellis Park Campus. Her portfolio covers both the National Certificate Vocational (NCV) and the National Accredited Technical Education Diploma (NATED) programmes. She commenced her employment in 2004.
[43] She referred to pages 1–7 of the Respondent’s Bundle, being an IQMS score-capturing spreadsheet. According to the entries reflected therein the applicant is recorded as having not submitted the requisite documentation from 2013 to 2020.
[44] The applicant chose not to comply with the process. She explained that the spreadsheet was prepared by HR after receiving the completed IQMS documents from the lecturers. The various departments would forward the IQMS documents to HR for capturing. She maintained that the applicant chose not to participate in the process during the relevant years.
[45] She confirmed the WhatsApp messages appearing at page 6-19 of Bundle A and acknowledged that the communication was happening in the Building and Civil Department WhatsApp group and that she had sent some of those messages. Some of the messages read as follows: –
22 October 2020
Mphahlele: my problem is that now you are telling us about attendance registers but you don’t remind us about IQMS, all the departments are busy doing it but in Civil we don’t get anything from you maam.
Skakane: all departments are busy doing it because it was discussed in the info sessions several times
Mphahlele: I was part of that meeting maam and I questioned about the date, bcz from March till June we were not working, and Matsila didn’t give me the answer…my question is that how are we going to compile IQMS without dates
Skakane: You can use last year’s summative as your baseline and focus on this term for your summative
08 December 2020
Skakane: This meeting never took place, it is just a paper trail and point number 7 confirms that IQMS was not done.
08 July 2021
Mdanisi: 1….(omitted-irrelevant)
2. why are we hearing about IQMS now in July, when the year is about to end?
3. …(omitted irrelevant)

4. last year we did not have class visits and IQMS was not done amongst other reasons we were told that it can’t be done because Mr Bauer is on special leave due to Covid-19 regulations. I then ask myself how it will be done this year because Mr Bauer is still on very same leave(emphasis added),
5. Which criteria was used last year to proceed with IQMS claims and allowed some colleagues to get paid whilst other were left out for this incentive? And what is more concerning is that some colleagues got the incentive whilst on special leave and some didn’t, but we are on duty every day?
6. Lastly, I have a concern with fraudulent documentation that is being used for these purposes and we are expected to keep quiet and those who have spoken in the past have since been victimized and the big question is why?

[46] In the WhatsApp conversations, the parties were discussing the IQMS process in the context of 2020 being a typical year due to the COVID-19 pandemic, during which lecturers were predominantly at home. She advised in those WhatsApp messages that lecturers should utilise the 2019 IQMS baseline for purposes of the 2020 IQMS process. She further testified that the messages demonstrate that the IQMS process had consistently been conducted at the Ellis Park Campus, albeit not implemented perfectly.
[47] The applicant’s non-payment resulted from his refusal to participate in the process, as he consistently maintained that it was flawed and criticised the way it was implemented. In her Department, the applicant is the only one who refused to participate. She stated that, as a consequence of his decision not to participate, no scores were allocated to him and he therefore did not qualify for payment of pay progression.
[48] The applicant only participated in the IQMS process in 2021 and was accordingly paid. She stated that nothing had changed in relation to the process, it was conducted in the same manner as in previous years. If indeed the applicant had a clear understanding of the IQMS, he should have been aware that he would not be eligible for IQMS pay progression if he chose not to participate, she is surprised that he now wants to be paid without having participated.
[49] She disputed the contention that the applicant was unaware of the fact that other lecturers were receiving payment for pay progression. She testified that lecturers would ordinarily discuss such matters amongst themselves, and that the applicant would therefore have been aware of the payments.
Cross examination
[50] The IQMS process requires that lecturers form Development Support Groups (DSGs), receive templates to complete, hold pre-evaluation meetings, conduct class visits using a tool to record observations and scores as assessed by the DSGs, and hold post-evaluation meetings. She acknowledged that the process was not always executed perfectly, as meetings were not consistently held, and she would prepare the minutes herself. The scores from these observations are then transferred to the IQMS forms. Human Resources provides a checklist for the required IQMS documents, and lecturers prepare their IQMS files in accordance with this checklist before submitting them to HR or to the Senior Lecturer.
[51] She contended that for the year 2020, due to the challenges posed by COVID-19, the summative scores from 2019 were used as the baseline. Lecturers were required to score themselves. She acknowledged that pre- and post-evaluations meetings were not conducted, submitting that this was as a result of the uniqueness of the year 2020. However, in the preceding years, 2013 to 2019, the IQMS process had been followed in a more consistent and standard manner.
[52] She conceded that IQMS Spreadsheet (Bundle R. pp 1-7) contains multiple errors, including inaccuracies in ages, gender, disability status, salary notches, dates of signing performance agreements, and dates of conducting assessments. She attributed these errors potentially to copying and pasting because the dates for agreements and assessments are the same for everyone, but maintained that the columns recording submissions and non-submissions were accurate. The accuracy is based not only on the information reflected in the spreadsheet but also on her personal knowledge. In her capacity as Head of Department, she is aware of which lecturers submitted the required documentation and which did not, and she does not require the spreadsheet to verify this.
[53] The IQMS documents that get submitted to Human Resource or herself are as per checklist they get from the HR. The documents include Personal Growth Plan, scores with Performance standards and minutes of Pre and Post Evaluation meetings.
[54] She conceded that the meetings reflected in the minutes appearing as WhatsApp communications on pages 6 to 18 of Bundle A did not take place. She acknowledged that these documents were prepared to provide NATED lecturers with minutes to assist them in completing their IQMS documentation. She conducted meetings only with the NCV lecturers and not with the NATED. She then took the minutes from the NCV meetings, modified certain items, and provided these minutes to the NATED lecturers.
[55] She conceded that pages 62–65 of bundle A constitute the measurement tool for PL1, and that all ratings, from Rating 1 to Rating 4, are conducted in class.
[56] She is aware that Ms Popela MF is a qualified lecturer but working at Student Support Services. It thus makes sense to her that Ms Popela would appear in IQMS document.
[57] She denied the applicant ever trained her on IQMS, if he had, he would have known better that a person who does not participate in the process does not get paid.
[58] According to her, it is fair that the applicant was not paid IQMS pay progression for 2020 because he chose not to participate in the process. On the other hand, Mr Bauer and other colleagues were absent in 2020 due to health issues (comorbidities), and that concessions were put in place as per DHET circular (Bundle R pp.8-9) for individuals with comorbidities so that they were not disadvantaged, as the circumstances were beyond their control. The applicant could and should have complied with the minimum requirement of submitting the necessary documents but chose not to do so. The employer (DHET) still expected IQMS documentation to be submitted, notwithstanding that employees were mainly home during the lockdown periods. According to her, the employer did what was necessary in a year as unique as 2020.

Second Witness: Mamale Elizabeth Ndawonde
[59] She is employed as a Personnel Officer at Central Johannesburg TVET College, Ellis Park Campus, and has been so employed since 2008.
[60] She is familiar with the spreadsheet appearing on pages 1–7 of Bundle R. It is the spreadsheet used by HR personnel to record which employees submitted IQMS documents and which did not. The documents on pages 1–7 were specifically compiled by Mr Spandiel, who has since retired.
[61] According to the spreadsheet, the applicant did not submit the required forms for the periods 2013–2020. Consequently, the applicant would not qualify for IQMS pay progression. The applicant submitted IQMS documents for 2021. She stated that nothing had changed in terms of the procedures; the applicant simply chose to participate in 2021.
[62] Under cross-examination, she testified that she joined CJC as an intern at HR section and was trained by Mr Ben Khakhu, who ensured that she covered the necessary scope of work. She did not enquire into his qualifications, as this was not relevant to her duties. She also attended workshops and received training from other HR personnel.
[63] She further stated that she is not aware of how the entire IQMS process is conducted. Her section only receives documents from the respective Heads of Departments, records who submitted and who did not submit, and captures the scores of those who submitted. She denied that the document was fabricated for the purposes of the arbitration.
[64] She maintained that the column recording submissions and non-submissions is correct and contains no errors, as the spreadsheet is specifically focused and used to record submissions and non-submissions.

Third Witness: Sabelo Plaatjie
[65] He is employed at Central Johannesburg TVET College as Assistant Director: Human Resources Management and Administration and is currently acting as Deputy Principal: Corporate Services.
[66] Pages 1–7 of Bundle R consist of spreadsheets recording the submission or non-submission of IQMS documents. Employees who fail to submit their IQMS documents are not eligible for IQMS pay progression. According to these records, the applicant did not submit his IQMS documents for the period 2013 to 2020 and is therefore not entitled to IQMS pay progression for that period.
[67] Payment without the required submission would result in an audit query, as the supporting documents are submitted to the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) for purposes of processing pay progression.
[68] The errors reflected in the spreadsheet are not substantive in nature and therefore cannot prevent payment, provided that all the required documents have in fact been submitted. The documents accompany the spreadsheet, the spreadsheet is not read in isolation.
[69] Ms Popela received IQMS pay progression because she was employed in Student Support Services, which is classified as a support-to-learning-and-teaching function. Employees in this category equivalent and referred to as office-based lecturers and are employed under the Employment of Educators Act. Accordingly, it is not unfair that Ms Popela appears on the spreadsheet, as she falls within the category of employees eligible for IQMS pay progression and not the PMDS pay progression.
[70] Mr Bauer and other employees who presented with comorbidities during the COVID-19 pandemic were required to remain at home, in accordance with the DHET circular appearing at pages 8 and 9 of Bundle R, issued by the Deputy Director: Corporate Services in response to the adjusted COVID-19 alert levels. Employees with comorbidities were required to submit supporting medical reports confirming that they were at high risk of contracting the COVID-19 virus. Such employees were further required to submit formal applications for approval to stay at home. Upon approval of these applications, they were not be prejudiced or disadvantaged in respect of IQMS pay progression.
[71] Under cross-examination, he stated that he is not aware that class visits were not conducted at the Ellis Park Campus and disputed such a blanket statement.
[72] He confirmed that he has seen IQMS files submitted by various campuses of the College, which files typically contain Key Performance Areas (KPAs), Growth Plans, minutes of meetings, evaluation forms, and the requisite checklists. The applicant’s denial that such files get submitted to the Colleges signifies that he is not clued up with the IQMS process, which can be attributable to his refusal to participate in the process.

ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT

[73] One of the primary objects of the LRA is to give effect to and regulate the fundamental rights conferred by section 23 of the Constitution including the right to fair labour practices enshrined in section 23(1). In order to give effect to the Constitution, section 186(2)(a) of the Labour Relations Act (LRA) defines an unfair labour practice as any unfair conduct in relation to, inter alia, provision of benefits.
[74] The applicant bears the onus to prove on balance of probabilities that the employer has committed an unfair labour practice.
[75] A benefit has been defined in the case of Apollo Tyres South Africa (Pty) Ltd v CCMA and others (DA 1/11) [2013] ZALAC 3; [2013] 5 BLLR 434 (LAC); (2013) 34 ILJ 1120 (LAC). It was held that term benefit includes a right or entitlement to which the employee is entitled (ex contractu or ex lege including rights judicially created) as well as an advantage or privilege which has been offered or granted to an employee in terms of a policy or practice subject to the employer’s discretion.
[76] There was no dispute that the provision of IQMS Pay Progression constitutes a benefit as contemplated in section 186(2) LRA, and as defined in the aforementioned case law, a position which I accept.
[77] It was also common cause that the IQMS pay progression benefit is not conferred automatically by the mere passage of time. Instead, there are specific procedures that must be followed by the employer and employee for the employee to become entitled to this benefit.
[78] The applicant submitted that the requirements for entitlement are those set out in the IQMS Collective Agreement. His position, however, is that the respondent, specifically the Ellis Park Campus, did not at all adhere to the IQMS Collective Agreement, yet certain individuals received the benefit while he was unfairly excluded. The respondent contended, on the other hand, that the IQMS process was followed, albeit not strictly or perfectly.
[79] From the evidence presented, it is clear that the IQMS Collective Agreement was not strictly adhered to. This was acknowledged by Ms. Skakane, who testified that the IQMS Collective Agreement was not fully implemented, as pre-and post-evaluation meetings were at times not conducted. She further stated that in 2020, even classroom visits were not conducted due to the exceptional circumstances presented by the Covid-19 pandemic that year.
[80] The finding that the IQMS Collective Agreement was not fully adhered to does not conclude the assessment. It is not the applicant’s case that the absence of strict compliance was the reason for the non-payment of the pay progression. In other words, the applicant does not allege that he was penalized for any failure to strictly follow the procedures prescribed by the IQMS Collective Agreement.
[81] The applicant’s version is that there was effectively no process to be followed for the IQMS; individuals were simply allocated scores behind closed doors and subsequently received the benefit. The applicant further asserted that in 2021 he did nothing differently yet received payment solely because he had brought the matter to the attention of the Council. This version is denied by the respondent.
[82] I now turn to the question of whether, despite the concession that the strict requirements of the IQMS process were not adhered to, there was nonetheless some process that was required to be followed.
[83] Upon a weighing of the probabilities, I find that the probabilities favour the respondent’s version. I find that there was indeed a process that needed to be followed at Ellis Park Campus for a lecturer to be entitled to the IQMS pay progression benefit. The reasons underpinning this finding are set out below.
[84] Firstly, the evidence presented on behalf of the applicant supports the existence of such a process. The testimony of Mr. Seloane, alongside the admitted evidence of Mr. Mdanisi, confirmed that there were IQMS forms that were submitted to Human Resources. Furthermore, both witnesses attested to acting in the capacity of the applicant’s DSG or peers and signed his forms.
[85] Secondly, the respondent’s witnesses also testified that there was a procedure that had to be followed. Ms. Skakane testified that, although meetings for pre-and post-evaluation were not consistently held, the other substantive requirements of the process were conducted, except for the period impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.
[86] Thirdly, the applicant made a material concession regarding the 2021 period when he acknowledged that he submitted the necessary forms and took a screenshot of the submission register.
[87] Fourthly, in October 2020 (the pandemic year), Mr Mphahlele in the WhatsApp chats of Civil and Building Department enquired how they were going to compile IQMS without dates and Ms Skakane directed them to use 2019’s summative as the baseline. If there was no process at all, this question and subsequently the answer would not have arisen in that WhatsApp group.
[88] Consequently, the assertion that there was no IQMS processes to be followed and that certain individuals simply decided behind closed doors who would receive the pay progression is rejected. Furthermore, it is undisputed that the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET- first respondent) bears the ultimate financial liability for the pay progression. Considering the administrative structure that exists between the College and the DHET, it is inconceivable that the College could unilaterally determine who would receive payment without some form of a process. It is furthermore unconceivable that the DHET would implement such decisions just on the say-so of the College.
[89] Having found that a process needed to be followed, the next question is: what was the process? The applicant contended that 80% of the IQMS assessment occurs in the classroom and, to his knowledge, class visits had never been conducted at Ellis Park. Ms. Skakane refuted this version and testified that lecturers form DSGs, receive templates to complete, hold pre-evaluation meetings, conduct class visits using a tool to record observations and scores as assessed by the DSGs, and hold post-evaluation meetings. She acknowledged that the process was not always executed perfectly, as meetings were not consistently held, and she sometimes prepared the minutes herself. The scores from these observations are then transferred to the IQMS forms. Human Resources provides a checklist of the required IQMS documents, and lecturers prepare their IQMS files in accordance with this checklist before submitting them to HR or the Senior Lecturer.
[90] The cross-examination of Ms Skakane by the applicant regarding the process was more pointed on the year 2020. Ms. Skakane already acknowledged that 2020 was a unique year due to the COVID-19 pandemic. She conceded that she prepared minutes without the actual meetings having taken place, because the DHET still required submission of the documents regardless of the circumstances of that year. In the WhatsApp conversations to which Ms. Skakane referred, she already stated that the minutes served merely as a paper trail to enable lecturers to process the IQMS documentation.
[91] The same WhatsApp messages indicate that some lecturers were aware that class visits were ordinarily required. For instance, Mr. Mdanisi raised concerns about class visits not occurring in 2020 due to Mr. Bauer’s absence and inquired how class visits would be conducted in 2021. Had class visits never been conducted at all, this question would not have arisen. The question of Mr Mdanisi in the WhatsApp group inherently reflects an expectation and understanding that class visits are part of the IQMS process.
[92] Ms. Skakane’s version was corroborated by the applicant’s witness, Mr. Seloane, who confirmed that there is a checklist specifying the documents that must be submitted to HR for IQMS purposes. It therefore follows that IQMS documentation exists beyond a single-page form. Further proof that IQMS required more than a single-page document is that, in 2020, the pre- and post-evaluation minutes were circulated to all lecturers via WhatsApp for IQMS submission purposes. Mr. Plaatjie, also stated that IQMS files are ultimately submitted to the College and confirmed that he has seen these files and their contents.
[93] For these reasons, I reject the applicant’s assertion that no class visits were conducted at Ellis Park. I accordingly also reject the applicant’s contention that IQMS submission consisted only of a one-page form.
[94] The WhatsApp messages corroborate Ms. Skakane’s testimony that class visits were indeed conducted, with the sole exception of 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. I do note the admitted evidence of Mr Mdanisi and the transcript I was referred to but wish to state that Mr Mdanisi’s evidence was not time-bound. Whether he was referring to 2020 or any other period remains a mystery.
[95] I now turn to the question of whether the applicant complied with the prescribed process. This enquiry, in turn, determines whether the respondent committed an unfair labour practice. The onus rested on the applicant to prove that he had complied with the required process. The respondent disputed that the applicant had complied with the process.
[96] The applicant advanced contradictory versions regarding whether he complied with the process, and in my view these versions are self-defeating. Firstly, he contended that there was no IQMS process at the Ellis Park Campus and that scores were just allocated arbitrarily. Although he disagreed with what he perceived to be the respondent’s approach, he maintained that he ought not to have been unfairly excluded from payment. Secondly, he submitted that in 2021 he received payment despite doing nothing differently, save for lodging a dispute with the Council, and he believed that the respondent paid him because of that. He further stated that in 2021 he submitted a single-page document and, because he took a photograph of the submission register, he was paid. Whether it was the lodging of the dispute at the Council, his retention of proof of submission, or a combination that resulted in his payment in 2021 remains unclear. This lack of clarity indicates that the applicant’s submission is speculative in the hope that one of the explanations might be accepted.
[97] The applicant’s versions were also both contradictory and mutually destructive. If the applicant’s case is that no process existed, he cannot simultaneously say that he submitted a document in compliance with such a process. Conversely, if he submitted a document, it necessarily follows that some form of process was in place.
[98] The applicant further submitted that his reporting of alleged wrongdoing may have contributed to his exclusion from receiving the benefit. Such an allegation would, in any event, fall outside the jurisdiction of the ELRC Council. More importantly, no evidence was presented to substantiate this claim. The only complaint contained in the applicant’s bundle relates to a 2021 complaint he addressed to Mr. Diago, wherein he raised concerns about documents being populated without due process, among other issues. This complaint post-dates the period during which he did not receive pay progression payment and therefore cannot sustain his contention.
[99] Further, the individuals who could potentially have exercised control over the applicant’s submission of IQMS documents were the HR officers, the Senior Lecturer (Mr. Bauer), and/or the HOD (Ms. Skakane). The applicant did not put a version to Ms. Skakane or Ms. Ndawonde suggesting any motive on their part to sabotage him by recording that he had not submitted the required documentation. In the absence of any suggested motive, it remains improbable that they would have deliberately interfered with or misrepresented his submissions.
[100] The applicant placed considerable reliance on the IQMS Submission Spreadsheet (Bundle R, pp. 1–7) and contended that the documents were, in his words, “cooked” for purposes of the arbitration. He based this allegation on the assertion that the documents reflected class visits allegedly conducted on days when learners were not present on campus, which he regarded as improbable. He further pointed out that performance agreements suggested to have been concluded during school or public holidays. In addition, he argued that the spreadsheets were highly questionable, as they contained numerous inaccuracies, including but not limited to incorrect disability status, ages, genders, and salary notches of employees. He also highlighted that Ms. Popela was reflected on the spreadsheet despite not being a lecturer.
[101] In relation to the spreadsheets, Ms. Ndaonde, the HR/Personnel officer, testified that although she did not personally prepare the documents appearing at pages 1–7 of Bundle R, the purpose of the spreadsheets was to record who had submitted the required IQMS documentation and who had not. She explained that at the stage of capturing submissions, HR did not verify the factual accuracy of all other data entries; rather, the focus was on recording whether the required documents had been submitted.
[102] Although I have noted the inaccuracies in the spreadsheet, I do not agree that such inaccuracies render the document inadmissible for lack of authenticity. The dates reflected for signing of performance agreements and assessments are identical for all employees, which supports the version that the information was not individually populated on the system. Ms. Ndaonde testified that the primary purpose of the spreadsheet was to capture whether IQMS documentation had been submitted or not.
[103] In respect of the columns recording submissions and non-submissions for the period 2013 to 2020, the applicant did not identify any inaccuracies in relation to other employees’ names, save for his own. In other words, the entries reflecting whether documentation was submitted or not were not challenged in respect of any other individual. The inaccuracies highlighted by the applicant related instead to aspects such as gender, age, and disability status. Ms Ndawonde’s evidence as to the purpose of the spreadsheet is also unchallenged. Applying the principle of substance over form, I am not persuaded that these errors justify rejecting the spreadsheet as evidence.
[104] The applicant further argued that Ms. Popela received IQMS payment while working in Student Support Services and that she was therefore not entitled to such payment. Mr. Plaatjie testified that Ms. Popela is regarded as an office-based lecturer and is employed under the Employment of Educators Act. It is unclear what the applicant sought to establish through this argument. If the suggestion was that, because another employee allegedly did not qualify yet received payment, he too should receive payment, such reasoning cannot sustain his claim. Alternatively, if the contention was that she could not have undergone class visits and therefore should not have qualified, that argument likewise does not advance his case.
[105] Mr. Plaatjie further testified that, in certain instances such as that of Mr. Bauer and other colleagues; the Department made concessions, although he was not aware of the precise process thereof, to ensure that those employees were not prejudiced due to illness which prevented them from rendering services during Covid-19 pandemic. The applicant, however, was not an office-based lecturer and was not homebound due to comorbidities during the COVID-19 pandemic. The only requirement incumbent upon him was to submit the prescribed IQMS documentation.
[106] Having regard to the above assessments, I find that the probabilities favour the respondent’s version that the applicant did not submit the required IQMS documentation. As testified by Ms. Skakane, and as reflected in the applicant’s own submissions during the arbitration, the applicant was critical of the process followed by the respondent on the basis that it did not strictly comply with the IQMS Collective Agreement. In these circumstances, it is plausible that he elected not to participate in a process with which he fundamentally disagreed.
[107] The applicant cannot now seek payment of the IQMS pay progression benefit in circumstances where he consciously elected not to submit the required IQMS documentation as I have found.
[108] It is my finding that the applicant failed to discharge on balance of probabilities that the respondents committed an unfair labour practice against him by not paying him IQMS Pay progression for the years 2013-2020.

AWARD
[109] The First Respondent did not commit an unfair labour practice towards the applicant by not paying him IQMS Pay progression for the period 2013-2020.
[110] The case against the Respondents is dismissed.

Dated on the 02 March 2026

Kuvonakala Chavalala : ELRC Panellist