---
title: "03 November 2026 – ELRC1001-25-26EC"
description: "Panelist: Jonathan Gruss Case No.: ELRC1001-25-26EC Date of Award: 03 November 2026 In the ARBITRATION between: Yulania George (Applicant) and Department of Education : Eastern Cape (Respondent) Applicant’s representative: Mr Unwin Respondent’s representative: Ms Kralo Summary: Section 186(2)(a) of the…"
url: "https://elrc.org.za/docs/03-november-2026-elrc1001-25-26ec/"
updated: "2026-11-05"
category: AWARDS
---

# 03 November 2026 – ELRC1001-25-26EC

Panelist: Jonathan Gruss Case No.: ELRC1001-25-26EC Date of Award: 03 November 2026

In the ARBITRATION between:

Yulania George
(Applicant)

and

Department of Education : Eastern Cape

(Respondent)

Applicant’s representative: Mr Unwin

Respondent’s representative: Ms Kralo

Summary: Section 186(2)(a) of the Labour Relations Act, Act 66 of 1995 as amended – unfair labour practice relating to promotion.

DETAILS OF HEARING AND REPRESENTATION

1. This dispute was scheduled for arbitration in terms of Section 191(5)(a)(iv) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 as amended (“the LRA”). The hearing was held at the District Offices in Gqeberha on 9 July 2026, 6 August 2026 and 12 October 2026 and the proceedings were electronically recorded. The applicant, Yulania George was represented by Mr Unwin, an attorney. The respondent, Department of Education: Eastern Cape was represented by Mr Kralo, a LR Officer. The parties by agreement submitted written closing arguments on 19 October 2026.

ISSUE TO BE DECIDED

1. The dispute referred concerns an alleged unfair labour practice dispute relating to promotion as it relates to the non-appointment of the applicant.

BACKGROUND TO THE ISSUES

1. The applicant referred a ULP promotion dispute to the ELRC.
2. The applicant applied for the advertised post as deputy principal at Delrose Full Service School in Rosedale, Kariega. The applicant met the minimum requirements for the post and she was shortlisted.
3. After the interviews, the applicant scored the highest score with a score of 59. The panel decided to rank the candidates based on the highest score and by consensus. The top 3 candidates rated based on the scoresheets. As a consequence thereto the applicant was recommended as the preferred candidate to be appointed. The SGB ratification meeting was held on 15 September 2025 and the applicant was recommended as the first choice, the second choice was Mr Fourie and the third choice was Mr Jordaan. On 23 September 2025 the recommendations of the SGB were not supported due to irregularities in the process. Five reasons were advanced by Mr Blou the circuit manager why the SGB’s recommendation was not supported. According to the letter the following irregularities were found.

5.1 The School Governing Body (SGB) meeting for the selection and appointment of the interview panel was held on 20 August 2025 and the resource person was not in the meeting as he attended other matters at the HR section (Ethel Valentine) and the deputy principal of the school, Ms JS Seekoei, stood in for him. The SGB panel meeting was held 2 weeks later to outline the process (3 September 2025). The Resource person was then indeed part of that meeting that according to the attendance register, both candidates in question were not part of the second meeting.

5.2 Two of the candidates, Ms Y George and Mr Marais were part of the SGB meeting where the panel was formulated and at no stage declared interest, nor recuse themselves from the meeting.

5.3 Mr D Marais was part of the short listing session, participated in the discussions of the short listing criteria after when the envelope was opened. He then recused himself upon seeing his name as part of the candidates for the post. He subsequently wrote a letter stating that he did not inform the Department that he withdrew his application.

5.4 The Panel was not in line with Eastern Cape Chamber (ECC) Collective Agreement 1 of 2024 in that, there were 2 parents and one non-teaching staff (SGB employee) who oversaw the shortlisting and interview process. No teacher component was present in the processes.

5.5 The recommended candidate is one of the educators in question, and it stands to reason that the candidate had an unfair advantage over the other candidates.

1. The first challenge against the decision taken by the respondent in terms of clause 8.3 of ECC Collective Agreement 1 of 2024 relates the time frames. The resolution provides that in case the Head of the Department or his/her delegated authority declines the School Governing Bodies recommendation, he/she must provide full motivation in writing within 14 working days or call a meeting with the School Governing Body to discuss the rejection of the recommendation and minute the decision taken in the meeting. Should there be no communication within 14 working days from the Head of Department or his or her delegated authority, it will imply that the recommendation made by the School Governing Body stands.
2. The applicant seeks to be appointed to the advertised post of deputy principal retrospectively. The applicant currently earns as a post level 1 educator R34259.25 per month.
3. The respondent’s stance to the applicant’s claim was that as stipulated in terms of clause 4.3 of the ECC collective agreement that panel should consist of at least a minimum of 3 members which shall include at least 2 parents, and 1 educator provided such an educator is not an applicant to the post at hand. Furthermore, in terms of the advertisement it is specifically recorded therein “The Department reserves the right not to fill the advertised post in this bulletin.” Further it’s alleged that the applicant participated in the SGB meeting when they were electing a panel. That in terms of clause 4.2.1 the interview committee shall comprise of members of the School Governing Body, excluding educator members who are candidates to the advertised posts. The meeting was held with the SGB on 5 November 2025 and as confirmed by the minute the purpose of the meeting was to address post 539 deputy principal, including the irregularities in audit findings relating to the recruitment process. The SGB was consulted and at the meeting the proposals in discussion included the following: All SGB members to receive proper training; Deputy Principal Post to be re-advertised; Independent panel to oversee the new recruitment process; Current SGB deemed compromised for this process. Independent EDO (Education Development Officer) to be appointed by Mr Balie and report to be compiled by Mr Blou and submitted to Mr Balie. As a result of the discussion with the SGB the post of deputy principal was re-advertised.

SURVEY OF EVIDENCE

1. This is a brief summary of evidence considered as provided for in terms of Section 138(7)(a) of the Act relevant to the dispute at hand and does not reflect all the evidence and arguments heard and considered in deciding this matter.

APPLICANT’S EVIDENCE

1. The applicant testified under oath. With reference to the SGB meeting: selection panel for deputy principal post held on 20 August 2025 she was invited to the meeting to elect the panel for the post. She signed the attendance register. She was a member of the SGB and then excused herself before the panel was elected. She disagrees with the minute of the meeting and therefore disputes that she seconded the nomination of C Davids and that she nominated L Lewis and that she nominated D Marais. What was recorded in the minute (B5) is incorrect and it does not happen like that. She did not attend the meeting of 3 September 2025 to start the process of deputy principal post (A7) and she did not attend the shortlisting meeting. She is a primary school educator who was invited to apply. She served as the SGB treasurer for 4 years and also assisted with finance and Administration. The Observer union SADTU (A13) declared that the shortlisting process of the post was fair. The 3 educators on the SGB was herself, Mr Marais and Ms Ratangee. She and Mr Marais attended the SGB training. SADTU (A19) declared that the interview process for the post in question was fair. Contrary as contained in the letter reason for not supporting recommendation for appointment of post at Dalrose Full Service School, she excluded herself from the SGB election meeting when panellists were elected. She signed the attendance register of the meeting held on 5 November 2025 in that she was, as per the invitation, invited (A21) and she excused herself from the meeting. With reference to the meeting held with the SGB on 5 November 2025 (A108-109) she did not attend this meeting and therefore she could not comment on the content of the minute. Concerning document (B110) with heading School Governing Body letter for the recommendation by Mr JM Bou that served as a formal agreement of the contents of the meeting held on 5 November 2025, she had never seen this document until shown in the arbitration.
2. Under cross examination, the applicant agreed that she attended the SGB meeting where panel members were elected and she signed the attendance register and then excused herself. She was aware, based on the invitation, that the purpose of the meeting was the election of selection panel. On a question as to why she attended the meeting that was to elect panel members, this was a SGB meeting she claimed and she is part of SGB and that is why she attended. She then excused herself from the proceedings. She insisted that what was recorded in the minutes of the meeting is not correct in that she was not there, so she did not nominate nor did she second anyone. She disagrees with what is contained in the minute. When asked whether the chairperson and the secretary of the SGB had mistaken her for someone else, the applicant responded she could not comment in that she was not there. As it relates to the minutes of the meeting with the SGB update on recruitment process dated 5 November 2025 she signed the attendance register and that is why her name appeared in the minute however she then excused herself. The applicant was then asked why she excused herself, why did the minute not reflect this. The applicant could not answer and respond to this question.
3. Linda Rossouw testified under oath. She is employed as a non-teaching staff, and she was the bursar of the school. She also serves on the SGB. She attended the meeting of the SGB held on 20 August 2025 where the selection panel was elected for the interview post of deputy principal. She signed the attendance register. This SGB meeting was called on the SGB’s WhatsApp group. One item on the agenda was selection of the panel. She went to the meeting that was held in the staff room. The applicant was also there. When Ms Seekoei the deputy principal arrived to start the meeting, it was then that the applicant was asked to be excused from the meeting and she then left. The minutes of this meeting (B5) is incorrect in that it records the applicant nominating and seconding interview panel members whereas she had left the meeting before this occurred. Concerning these minutes the previous day prior to the arbitration the Department called them in and took them through the minutes. This was the first time that she had seen the minutes. When referring to them she refers to Ms Lewis in that they both were called.
4. Under cross examination, the witness was asked whether she is saying that the secretary who recorded the minutes did so incorrectly. The witness was asked as to who nominated Ms Davids, she responded that it was a long time ago and she could not recall, she could not remember. It was suggested to the witness that the chairperson used the applicant’s phone to call Ms Hendricks. The witness confirmed that she did receive training for recruitment process as a SGB member. On a question of law as to whether there were educators in the SGB meeting when the panel was elected the witness indicated that there was Mr Ratangee who took the minutes. With reference to the minutes of the ratification meeting (B51) this was a true reflection as to what transpired in the meeting. As relates to the minutes of the shortlisting meeting held on 9 September 2025 (B9) this was also a true and accurate reflection as to what transpired at that meeting. She confirms that she signed the minutes of this meeting as the secretary of the panel. On a question as to whether Mr Marais participated in the meeting, the shortlisting meeting, the witness indicated no and confirm that no attempts were made to Co-op an educator.
5. Under re-examination with reference to the SGB meeting where the panel was elected with reference to the minutes (B5) Mr Voster did not attend the meeting in that he was the acting principal that day. Considering the meeting held on 5 November 2025 that dealt with update on post 539 deputy principal recruitment process (B108) after leaving the meeting she was approached by Mr Blou who called her back and informed her that he wanted to know from the SGB in her presence whether they mandated her to send correspondence to the district director enquire why the post was not filled. Mr Blou wanted to know if the SGB mandated her to send the district director an email. The SGB did mandate her to send the email there after he informed her that she could go. This was not included in the minutes. The SBC decided not for an independent panel. The applicant was present at the meeting and Mr Blou then asked her and Mr Marais excused himself in that they were candidates.
6. Mr Dirk Vernon Marais testified under oath. He is employed by the respondent at St Joseph’s Primary School and during August 2025 he was employed at Dalrose Primary School, he was the departmental head of life skills. He was also a member of the SGB at Dalrose Primary School. He did receive training. He applied for the position of deputy principal as advertised. After submitting his application for the post, he withdrew his application. He attended the meeting on 20 August 2025 and signed the attendance register. The applicant did not attend the meeting. She was there before the meeting started when she left. The applicant did not second and neither did she nominate anyone. She was not in the meeting. He cannot remember who nominated and seconded nominations in that this happened a long time ago. He did say that the applicant was not at the meeting in that he took the applicant’s phone to her class. The chairperson asked to use the phone in order to call Ms Hendricks who was not present in the meeting. This was to make her part of the meeting. The applicant was the only person that had data on her phone. On a question whether Mr Kralo the respondent’s representative asked him about the applicant’s participation in the meeting, he told him that she was not at the meeting and that after the meeting he returned the phone to her in the class. Concerning the SGB meeting held on 5 November 2025 as summoned by Mr Blou (B108-109) he noticed that Ms Hendricks was also at the meeting that she did not form part of the meeting. He commented to Mr Blou that the principal had something to say with regard to Ms Hendricks. The principal informed Mr Blou that Hendricks was no longer part of the SGB so that she cannot stay. Ms Hendricks did not leave the meeting. The Hendricks concerns were not recorded in the minutes of the meeting.
7. Under cross examination, the witness was asked as to when Ms Hendricks ceased to be a member of the SGB. The response given was that it was when she failed to attend 5 meetings and this was communicated to her by the principal. He could not recall how many meetings were held before the deputy principal post was advertised. He also could not recall if Mr Voster explained to Mr Blou the reason why Ms Hendricks was no longer a member of the SGB. The witness was asked whether Ms Hendricks was replaced and he indicated that he was not sure what happened. The witness further confirmed that he was a member of the SGB for less than a year. He indicated that he only received recruitment training after he was elected to the SGB. Concerning the meeting held on 5 November 2025 he did not form part of that meeting. Considering the short listing meeting held on 9 September 2025 he attended the meeting but he did not participate in that he recused himself from the meeting.
8. Under re-examination, the witness’s attention was drawn to the WhatsApp message (A3) wherein it was recorded that members please note the School Act states that if a member was absent for 3 consecutive meetings, such position shall be filled by a by-election. This is a case of Mr Pienaar, Mrs Hendricks and Mrs Jacobs.

RESPONDENT’S EVIDENCE

1. Mr Francois Willem Ratangee testified under oath. He is the secretary of the SGB and is also an educator at Delrose Primary School. The witness confirmed that B5 is the minutes of the first selection panel meeting that was held on 20 August 2025. He attended the meeting and the purpose of the meeting was to select the panel. He, Mr Marais, Ms Davids, Ms Rossouw, the applicant a teacher and Ms Seekoei deputy principal attended the meeting. They elected Ms Davids, Ms Rossouw, Mr Marais and Ms Lewis to the panel. It was suggested to the witness that the applicant denied that she nominated or seconded panel members. The witness responded that she did. It was suggested to the witness that Ms Rossouw and Mr Marais corroborated that the applicant did not nominate nor second anyone. The witness responded that the applicant was there and what they are claiming is untrue. With reference to a meeting scheduled for 5 November 2025 with the SGB by Mr Blou he was in attendance at that meeting, the applicant was at the meeting, and she had to excuse herself in that she was a candidate. With reference to the minutes of the meeting of 5 November 2025 (A108-109) regarding the attendance register he confirms that those names appearing therein were at the meeting and the minutes are an accurate reflection as to what occurred at the meeting.
2. Under cross examination, it was pointed out to the witness with reference to the minutes as reflected in A108-109 that the minutes did not reflect that the applicant and Mr Marais recused themselves from the meeting. It was further not recorded that Ms Rossouw left the meeting in that she had appointment. With the composition of the panel that interviewed candidates, the witness pointed out that there were no educators on the panel.
3. Ms Jenever Seekoei testified under oath. She is deputy principal at Delrose Full Service School and she had been in the post for 2 years. She only started to participate for the first time in the process on 20 August 2025 when the selection panel members were elected. She attended this meeting as an Exco official in that she was filling in for Mr Voster who was unavailable. She confirms that Ms Lewis, Mr Marais, Ms Rossouw and Ms Davids were nominated to the panel. The applicant was part of the meeting, and she gave her phone to Ms Lewis for a third parent to be phoned to form part of the meeting.
4. Under cross examination, the witness indicated that she did not know that the applicant and Mr Marais applied for the post. She disputes that the applicant recused herself. The SGB was not functioning.

ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE

1. It has become trite law that there are three basic requirements for a fair appointment or promotion: the procedure must have been fair, there must have been no discrimination, and the decision must not have been grossly unreasonable.
2. The principles which determine promotion disputes are summarised by Commissioner Rycroft in Dlamini v Toyota SA Manufacturing (2004) 25 ILJ 1513 (CCMA) at 1517 where he is reported as follows:
   “The principles which must determine this dispute are, in my view, the following:
3. In the area of appointments and promotions, in the absence of gross unreasonableness which leads the Court or the CCMA to draw an inference of mala fides, the CCMA or Court should be hesitant to interfere with the exercise of management’s discretion.
4. In drafting the unfair labour practice provision, the legislature did not intend to require arbitrating Commissioners to assume the roles of employment agencies. The Commissioner’s function is not to ensure that employers choose the best or most worthy candidates for promotion, but to ensure that, when selecting employees for promotion, employers do not act unfairly towards candidates.
5. The relative inferiority of a successful candidate is only relevant if it suggests that the superior candidate was overlooked for some unacceptable reason, such as those listed in section 6 of the EEA (Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998).
6. The division of the unfair labour practice jurisdiction between the Labour Court and the CCMA indicates that the legislature did not intend Commissioners to concern themselves when deciding disputes relating to promotion with the reasons why the employer declined to promote the applicant employee, but rather with the process which led to the decision not to promote the employee when selecting a candidate for promotion are relevant only insofar as they shed light on the fairness of the process.”
   See also Cullen and Distell (Pty) Ltd [2001] 8 BALR 834 (CCMA).”
7. As suggested by the applicant in her closing arguments that I am not called upon to determine whether the applicant was suitable out of all and the best candidate, the panel found her to be so, and this is not disputed. What the arbitrator is called upon to determine is whether the process was regular in the manner alleged by the respondent and, if so, whether such irregularities serve to vitiate the process. I am also called on to determine whether it was open to the respondent to raise the alleged irregularities when it did, having regard to the provision of ECC collective agreement 1 of 2024.
8. The question in a more simplistic approach is whether the respondent, the district director who is the delegated authority was entitled to make a decision not to appoint by implication the applicant and thereby not to appoint anyone but rather to have the post is re-advertised. The reasons as confirmed in correspondence addressed to the SGB in (in or is?) not supporting their recommendation for appointment of the post as advertised. It is clear that this determination must have been influenced by documentation that the district director received forming part of the recruitment process.
9. The reason that the SGB meeting for the selection and appointment of the interview panel was held on 20 August 2025 and the deputy principal of the school, Ms Seekoei stood in for him (please consider revising this sentence. It appears to be incomplete). This SGB panel meeting did not discuss the management plan of this process and, subsequently, a meeting was held 2 weeks later to outline the process (3 September 2025) the resource person was then part of that meeting, but according to the attendance register, both candidates in question were not part of the second meeting. The 2 candidates, the applicant and Mr Marias were part of the SGB meeting where the panel was formulated and at no stage declared interest nor recuse themselves from the meeting. Mr Marais was part of the shortlisting session, participated in the discussion of the short-listing criteria up to the point when the envelope was opened. He then recused himself upon seeing his name as part of the candidates for the post. He subsequently wrote a letter stating that he did inform the Department that he withdrew his application. The panel consisted of 2 parents and one non-teaching staff (SGB employee) who oversaw the shortlisting and interview process. No teacher component was present in the process. The recommended candidate was one of the educators in question, and it stands to reason that the candidate was a candidate that had an unfair advantage over other candidates.
10. In the recommendation made by the circuit manager that an independent panel be instituted to oversee the process, in line with ECC collective agreement 1 of 2024, Point (9.1) and (9.2) which reads as follows: “Where it is not possible for an interview committee to be consulted as per this collective agreement or PAM or the Employment of Educators Act due to incompetency, dysfunctionality, disagreement conflict, the HOD or the delegated authority may appoint an independent panel to do the shortlisting interviews and recommendation, and provide such an independent panel to do the shortlisting, interviews and recommendation provided such an independent panel will perform its work in the presence of the union representative as observers. Before the HOD appoint an independent panel, the HOD must comply with the provisions of section 25 (1) of the South African Schools Act.
11. The respondent faced with this information consulted the SGB on 5 November 2025 and, according to the minutes of that meeting, the SGB recommendation and request and unanimously agree, after the caucus meeting to re-advertise a post. Mr Blou explained that the post will be re-advertised in June 2026 or alternatively in November/December 2025 through the PPN 2026 process.
12. I sit with two conflicting versions as tendered by the applicant’s witnesses as testified regarding Ms Rossouw that the applicant attended the meeting starting the recruitment process, completed attendance register and then excused herself. The witness disputes that the applicant nominated anyone and seconded any panel member, and she claimed that the minutes were incorrectly recorded. Mr Marais confirmed that he applied for the post of deputy principal and after submitting his application for the post he withdrew his application. He attended the meeting on 20 August 2025 and signed the attendance register. He claims that the applicant did not attend the meeting. He claimed that she was there before the meeting started and then she left. He claims that the applicant did not nominate nor did she second any panel members. When asked as to who nominated, the witness could not remember claiming it was too long ago.
13. Mr Ratangee and Ms Seekoei testified for the respondent. He confirmed at the meeting where the selection panel was “elected” he, Mr Marais, Ms Davids, Ms Rossouw, the applicant and Ms Seekoei were in attendance. It was at this meeting that they elected panel members. It was specifically put to this witness that the applicant denies that she nominated and seconded any other panel members. The witness was adamant that she did. When a proposition was put to the witness that Mr Marais and Ms Rossouw corroborated the evidence when they claim that the applicant did not nominate any other panel members. The witness insisted that what the applicant was claiming is not true. When confronted under cross examination relating to the minutes of the SGB meeting dated 5 November 25 she indicated that she did not record both the applicant and Mr Marais recusing themselves from the process. Neither did she record that Ms Rossouw left in that she had an appointment. Ms Seekoei testified that she attended the selection panel meeting as an ex officio in that she was filling in for the principal, Mr Voster. She claims that the applicant formed part of the meeting and that she gave her phone to Ms Lewis so that a third parent could be found to form part of the meeting. Under cross examination, the witness indicated that she did not know that the applicant and Mr Marais applied for the post. She disputed that the applicant recused herself from that meeting and indicated that the SGB was not functioning.
14. The minutes of the selection panel meeting dated 20 August 2025 specifically records that the applicant participated in the election of panel members forming part of the interview panel. These minutes are signed by the chairperson Ms Lewis and Mr Ratangee who attended the meeting. It appears that Mr Voster the principal who did not attend the meeting, signed the minutes post facto. The question I ask: where did the secretary / scribe get this information that was recorded in the minutes as to who nominated who and who seconded a nomination. Why would someone incorporate information that was not the truth? No reasons were forthcoming why this would happen. This is the same document that was sent along with the promotion/recruitment pack that contained the recommendation recommending the applicant as the first preference to be appointed. It is clear to me that this document was sent to the district director’s office informing them of those involved in the panel appointed phase. This tells me that the SGB must have been unaware that it would be irregular for a candidate to participate in the recruitment process, even if it is at the commencement of the process. The version put forward by the respondent for reasons as explained I find more probable to that put forward by the applicant. In my view had the respondent appointed the applicant, any of the unsuccessful candidates would have grounds to refer an unfair labour practice dispute that would unseat the appointment based on irregularities.
15. It was argued by the applicant with reference to clause 8.3 of ECC Collective Agreement 1 of 2024 that it was not open for the respondent to raise alleged irregularities when it did, having regard to the provisions of the collective agreement. The requirements for the Head of Department or his or her delegated authority to decline the SGB’s recommendation, he must provide full motivation in writing within 14 days or call a meeting with the School Governing Body to discuss the rejection of the recommendation and must minute the decision taken in the meeting. Should there be no communication within 14 days from the Head of Department or his delegated authority, it will imply that the recommendation made by this SGB stands. The ratification meeting was held on 15 September 2025 and the EDO on 23 September 2025 did not support the recommendation. On 26 September 2025 the chief education specialist Mr Balie co-signed the decision not to recommend an appointment based on irregularities. The district director on 10 October 25 did not recommend the appointment and instructed that the post be re-advertised. However, on 25 September 2025 correspondence was sent to the SGB giving reasons why the recommendation of the SGB was not accepted. It appears that the ratification meeting was held on a Saturday and the first working day was Monday, 17 November 2025. Therefore, correspondence was sent to the SGB giving reasons why the recommendations of the SGB not be accepted, this was within 7 working days. Should I be wrong in this regard not only was correspondence sent to the SGB, but a meeting was also then held on 5 November 2025. I am of the view that the 14 working days only applies where reasons are given without a physical meeting with the SGB. The fact that the physical meeting was held with the SGB to explain the respondent’s decision, this clause is of no assistance to the applicant.
16. Accordingly, I cannot falter the respondent in not accepting the recommendations of the SGB in that irregularities were discovered in the process. The applicant accordingly has not discharged the burden of proof that an unfair labour practice was committed relating to promotion as it relates to her.

AWARD

1. The respondent, the Department of Education: Education had not perpetrated an unfair labour practice relating to promotion when they chose not to accept the recommendation of the SGB and thereby not appointing the applicant and directing that the post be re-advertised.

Name: Jonathan Gruss
(ELRC) Arbitrator