04 September 2026 – ELRC52-26-27MP

ARBITRATION AWARD

Case Number: ELRC52-26-27MP
Commissioner: E Maree
Date of Award: 04 September 2026

In the ARBITRATION between

SADTU obo Nomsa Selina Masemola
(Applicant)

And

		    Department of Education  Mpumalanga

(Respondent)

Applicant’s representative Mr. G. Masondo

Respondent’s representative Mr. P.M. Shabangu
Details of hearing and representation

The arbitration hearing regarding an alleged unfair dismissal dispute, referred in terms of section 191 of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (as amended), (the ‘’LRA’’) was heard on 6 August 2026 via TEAMS.
The applicant was represented by Mr. G. Masondo an official from SADTU, while the respondent was represented by Mr. P.M. Shabangu , the Labour Relations Practitioner.
The arbitration was electronically recorded, and handwritten notes were taken. At the conclusion of the last arbitration hearing, the parties have agreed to submit written closing arguments on or before 14 August 2026.

Issues to be decided

I must determine whether or not the applicants was dismissed and if so, if it was substantively and procedurally fair. In the event of a finding of unfairness, appropriate relief must be determined.

Background to the dispute

The applicant was employed as post level 1 educator at Vezubuhle Secondary School from 26 January 2026. She received a letter of termination dated 26 February 2026 indicating the termination of her services on 27 March 2026. The respondent contented that employment was in terms of a fixed term contract.
The parties submitted a common bundle that also included a signed pre-arbitration agreement.

Survey of evidence and argument

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.

Applicants’ s evidence

The applicant testified in order to prove on a balance of probabilities that she was unfairly dismissed.
Ms. Nomsa Selina Masemola testified that following an application to an advertisement for a vacant temporary P1 post, she was shortlisted, interviewed (6 August 2025) and received an offer letter ( page 17) with a date stamp of 2025-10-27, but signed by the District Director on 25 January 2026. She accepted the offer and started working on 28 January 2026.
According to Ms. Masemola she was informed by the Principal on 4 March 2026 to ‘stop working’. When she questioned this, she was informed by the Principal that ‘the District said you must stop working’. The letter ( page 20) is from the Principal. Such was not given to her but she took a photo. She had not received a letter from the District. She stopped working on 27 March 2026.
Ms Masemola submitted that she ‘’does not know’ of any contracts that end after three months, and ‘only knows of substitutes’. This was her first contract and she ‘’did not know of three months but thought it would be 6 or 12 months’’. The post ( page 30) is not filled and she was not informed that her contract ended as there was no longer a post. The letter ( pages 18 & 19) is from the District Director, with a date stamp of 2026-05-22 but she was informed during March (page 20) to ‘go home’.

Respondent’s case

The respondent called three (3) witnesses to testify on its behalf.
The first witness Ms. Manola Skosana testified that she is the Principal at Vezubuhle Secondary School and that a temporary vacant post was advertised ( page 16) as there was a need for a substitute educator during term 3. Following interviews and the recommendation they waited for feedback of the appointment. She made follow ups and on 26 January 2026 the Circuit informed her that there was an offer for the applicant. She called the applicant on this day and she signed acceptance of the offer which she took to the circuit on 27 January 2026.
Ms Skosana stated that she received a call from the circuit on 26 February 2026 and she was handed a letter to inform the applicant that her contract ended as she was only appointed for one term. She called the applicant to her office on 26 February 2026 and the phone call with the circuit manager was placed on speaker and the applicant was informed to stop working.
It was submitted by Ms Skosana that the letter ( page 20) was addressed to her and as such she only showed it to the applicant who took a photo thereof. This was on 27 February 2026 and the applicant left on 27 March 2026. The applicant was supposed to be employed on a fixed term contract ( page 40) from 1 September 2025 until 3 December 2025. This however, did not materialise due to an instruction by the District Director to halt appointments. The applicant then assisted as volunteer until the signing of the fixed term contract from 26 January 2026 until 27 March 2026 as there was no longer a need for her skills.
The second witness Ms Elizabeth Betty Kabini testified that she is employed at HR Provisioning Section at the Nkangala district as Personnel Officer and it is one of her duties to issue offer letters. The advertisement ( page 16) is done by the school and shows the existence of a vacant temporary post and the need for PLI Educator. She ‘knows’ pages 18 & 19 but such is drafted/done by the employment section as instructed by HR Provisioning.
Ms Kabini submitted that she wrote the letter on page 20 as the Director had approved the appointment until 27 March 2026. She phoned the school and informed the applicant telephonically of the end date and such was confirmed with the letter. The Director approves the period of contracts as per the needs of a school and the document on page 17 is from the advisory section as per the Directors approval. The start date was 26 January 2026 as the Director signed the offer on 25 January 2026 with the end dated of 27 March 2026.
The third witness Mr. Graca Mokoena testified that he is the Principal Personnel Officer and that the employment of the applicant was confirmed as per pages 18 & 19 from 26 January 2026 until 27 March 2026. He signed it on 22 May 2026 as the supervisor (Mr. Makena) who had to sign such was on sick leave and as such the matter was delayed. He was only authorised during May 2026 to sign on behalf of Mr Makena.

Analysis of evidence and arguments

In terms of section 192(1) of the LRA, the onus is on an applicant to establish the existence of the dismissal. In casu it was disputed that the applicant was dismissed.
It was the respondent’s contention that the applicant was employed on a fixed term contract that expired as per the terms thereof and in circumstances that did not create a legitimate expectation.
Section 186(1)(b) of the LRA defines ‘dismissal’ as follows:

‘’an employee employed in terms of a fixed term contract of employment reasonably expected the employer –

(i) to renew a fixed term contract of employment on the same or similar terms but the employer offered to renew it on less favourable terms, or did not renew it’’; or

(ii) to retain the employee in employment on an indefinite basis but otherwise on the same or similar terms as the fixed term contract, but the employer offered to retain the employee on less favourable terms, or did not offer to retain the employee’’

The applicant had to prove that she was dismissed as the fixed term contract have been terminated in circumstances where she had a reasonable expectation of renewal of either another fixed term contract on the same of similar basis or to be retained on an indefinite basis on the same or similar terms as the fixed term contract.
Section 186 (1) (b) refers to a ‘’reasonable expectation’’ as opposed to ‘’expectation’’ or ‘’hope’’ or wishes’’ which means it can only be created by a person/body clothed with the authority to renew contracts and/or in circumstances that created such expectation.
It was the evidence and argument on behalf of the respondent that there existed a three month fixed term contract that expired through the effluxion of time as per the terms thereof. Such effluxion does not amount to a dismissal and there was no reasonable expectation of renewal.
The crux of the applicant’s case was that she commenced employment on 28 January 2026 until 27 March 2026. She referred to the various documents ( pages 17 – 20) in support of her case. She contented that she only received the contract ( pages 18 & 19) during May 2026 thus after she stopped working on 27 March 2026. She conceded that she was informed by the Principal, Ms Skosana on 4 March 2026 that her contract would end on 27 March 2026 as per page 20 that was shown to her.
During cross-examination, when referred to page 33, the applicant admitted that the Director recommended the contract until 27 March 2026 for the post in which she was appointed. She then accepted, when it was put to her, that she was employed on a fixed term contract.
When asked what her expectation was, the applicant stated that she expected to be employed for more than 2 months or until the end of 2026. During evidence in chief, she submitted that she ‘’does not know’ of any contracts that end after three months, and ‘only knows of substitutes’. She testified that this was her first contract and she ‘’did not know of three months but thought it would be 6 or 12 months’’.
In the matter of University of Cape Town v Auf der Heyde (2001) 12 BLLR 1316 (LAC) the Court held that the test for reasonable expectation was two-fold. The first dealt with whether the employee actually expected the contract to be renewed and the second whether the expectation was reasonable.
Having considered the evidence presented, the applicant failed to prove that she had an expectation of renewal. Her ‘’hope’’ as to what the contract period might or should have been, does not show an expectation of renewal. The applicant referred to the advertisement (page 16) that led to her application. The heading of this reads ‘’vacant temporary P1 Educator post’’. This on its own, shows that there can be no expectation of a material and/or continuous period of employment.
The arguments raised in closing on behalf of the applicant, for reasons unknown referred inter alia to Section 198B (which was not referred as such) and the arguments raised as to why the applicant had a reasonable expectation of renewal failed to convince (paragraph 3.3 of said arguments).
The applicant failed to prove that she had been dismissed.

Award