02 November 2026 – ELRC620-26/27GP

Case Number: ELRC620-26/27GP
Commissioner: PAUL PHUNDU
Date of Award: 30 OCTOBER 2026

In the ARBITRATION between

Agnes Sephoto
(Union/Applicant)

And

Department of Education – Gauteng
(Respondent)

 Details of hearing and representation

[1] This is the award in the arbitration between Agnes Sephoto, (hereinafter referred to as the Applicant) and Department of Education – Gauteng, (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent). The matter was set down for arbitration on 19 October 2026 virtually on MS Team Platform.
[2] The Applicant was present at the arbitration hearing and she represented herself. The Respondent was represented by, Mr. Diketso Jafta, Employee Relations Official.
[3] The arbitration hearing was held under the auspices of the Council in terms of section 191(5) (a) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995, as amended (the Act). The award is issued in terms of section 138 (7) of the Act.
[4] A bundle of documents marked as annexure “A’ was presented as a common bundle and the content was not disputed.
[5] The proceedings were digitally recorded. I have also kept handwritten notes.

Issue to be decided

[6] I am required to establish whether the Respondent unilaterally changed the terms and conditions of employment of the Applicant or not, if so, I must determine the appropriate remedy.

 Background to the issue

[7] The Applicant is temporarily employed by the Respondent as an Educator PL 1 at Mapetla High School.
[8] According to the Applicant, the Respondent unilaterally changed her terms and conditions of employment without consultation.
[9] She declared a dispute. Conciliation failed and the certificate of non-resolution of the dispute was issued. The matter proceeded to arbitration. In terms of relief, the Applicant prayed for re-instatement of her terms and conditions of employment.

 Survey of arguments and evidence

The applicant’s case

[10] Ms. Sephoto Agnes Sewele testified, under oath, that she was appointed by the Respondent as Level 1 Educator on a fixed term contract of 12 months starting from 2 October 2024 ending on 30 September 2025.
[11] According to the Applicant, she was entitled to maternity leave while occupying this temporary position
[12] Ms Sewele stated that the position she occupied on a temporary basis ceased to exist because a new employee was appointed permanently into the position.
[13] Ms Sewele concluded by stating that the Respondent unilaterally changed the terms and conditions of her employment, as a result, her right to maternity leave was denied.
[14] Under cross-examination Ms Sewele conceded that she was given a second offer of temporary employment for another 12 months and the terms and conditions of this new position were discussed with her as well as the benefits.
[15] Ms Sewele further confirmed that she accepted the new terms and conditions of employment and one of the clauses in this new fixed term contract of employment stipulated that she would not be entitled to maternity leave because of the temporary nature of employment.
[16] Ms Sewele further confirmed that she did not sign the contract of employment under duress.

   The Respondent’s case

[17] Mr Steven Chauke testified, under oath, that he is employed by the respondent as Principal at Mapetla High School since 2020.
[18] Mr. Chauke stated that the Applicant was initially employment temporarily against a promotional position in October 2024. The contract later came to an end and the position was later was filled permanently by another employee.
[19] The Applicant was offered another temporary position which had a term that she would not be entitled to maternity leave. Benefits and other responsibilities of the new fixed term position were discussed with the Applicant.
[20] Mr Chauke further indicated that the Applicant agreed that she will be entitled to only one week maternity leave and she agreed.
[21] Mr Chauke concluded by stating that the Respondent did not unilaterally changed the terms and conditions of the Applicant’s employment.
[22] Under cross-examination Mr Chauke maintained that the Respondent did not unilaterally changed the terms and conditions of the Applicant’s employment.

Analysis of evidence and arguments

[23] This matter is crisp and straightforward and needs no belabouring.
[24] The LRA requires that brief reasons be given in an award, therefore the following is a summary of the relevant evidence given under oath and submissions made in argument all of which is not reflected in this award but had nevertheless been taken into account.
[25] Section 64(4) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 allows employees or a trade union to demand that an employer stop or reverse a unilateral change to terms and conditions of employment when a dispute has been referred to the CCMA or a bargaining council.
[26] It is my finding that the Respondent did not unilaterally changed the terms and conditions of the Applicant’s temporary employment. The reason I say so is because the Applicant conceded that her previous temporary position ceased to exist as it was permanently filled.
[27] Further to the above, the Applicant agreed that she was part of the discussions regarding her new offer of temporary fixed employment and she accepted the offer in writing and one of the clauses stipulated that she will not be entitled to maternity leave based on the temporary nature of the position.
[28] In my view, there was no unilateral change to terms and conditions of employment as she was consulted and the benefits and new terms where discussed with the Applicant. The Applicant voluntarily accepted the new terms of employment after consultation.
[29] I am satisfied and accept Mr Chauke’s testimony that the Applicant was made aware that she will not be entitled to maternity leave in her new position and the terms and conditions of employment were discussed with the Applicant. The reason I say so is because this was not disputed by the Applicant when it was put to her.
[30] It is my finding that the Respondent did not unilaterally changed the terms and conditions of the Applicant’s employment.
[31] I therefore make the following award: