EDUCATION LABOUR RELATIONS COUNCIL

ELRC951-25/26LP
Seliki Bernard Nkgweng Applicant

And

Education Department of Limpopo 1st Respondent
Mokgabudi L.R. 2nd Respondent

ARBITRATION AWARD

DETAILS OF THE HEARING AND REPRESENATION

1. This is an award in the arbitration between Seliki Bernard Nkgweng, the applicant, and Education Department of Limpopo, first respondent and Mokgabudi LR, second respondent.
2. The arbitration process was held under the auspices of the ELRC in terms of the section 191(5) (a) of the Labour Relations Act 1995, as amended (the Act) and the award is issued in terms of Section 138(7) of the Act.
3. The arbitration proceedings commenced on 25 May 2026 and were concluded on 25 August 2026.
4. The applicant was represented by Mr. Madie P.H, an official from SADTU.
5. The respondent was represented by Ms. Rasebotse N from Labour Relation Section.

THE NATURE OF THE DISPUTE AND ISSUES TO BE DECIDED

6. The applicant’s dispute is about an alleged unfair labour practice relating to promotion following, the appointment of the second respondent as a Deputy Principal.
7. I am required to determine whether the first respondent committed an unfair labour practice which it did not appoint the applicant to the position or not.
8. To order appropriate relief.

BACKGROUND TO THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE
9. The applicant referred an unfair labour practice dispute to the ELRC challenging the first respondent’s decision appointing the second respondent as a Deputy Principal.

10. The dispute remained unresolved after conciliation and the matter was scheduled for an arbitration process.
11. The parties submitted bundles of documents. The applicant’s bundle was marked Exhibit “A” whilst the respondent’s bundles were marked Exhibits R and R1 respectively.
12. At the end of the arbitration proceedings, both parties requested to submit written closing arguments on 02 September 2026.

SURVEY OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS

Applicant’s case

13. Seliki Bernard Nkgweng testified under oath and stated that he is challenging the appointment of the second respondent on the Deputy Principal Position no 30 at Jane Furse Comprehensive School. He stated that there was an irregularity which happened on the day of the interview because of a conflict of interest. Mr. Kgolane, a panel member is friend of the second respondent.
14. He stated further that Mr. Kgolane, the second respondent and himself are colleagues. They all serve in the school management team together. Over and above this, Mr. Kgolane and the second respondent are friends. They have lunch together and share leisure. They would slaughter a chicken and ask a lady working in the kitchen to cook it for them. They are members of the same stokvel as well as taking trips together as club members. In 2023, they went on a cruise trip together with the Principal of the school, Ntake P. F.
15. He stated further that in terms of Clause 12.1.2 and 12.1.3 of Collection Agreement 2 of 2020, Mr. Kgolane was supposed to have withdrawn or recused himself because he was the second respondent’s friend. He previously recused himself when one of the candidates he knew was interviewed. He lodged a grievance to raise his dissatisfaction. Clause 12.1.2 provides as follows:

“A member of the School Governing Body or an Interview Committee must withdraw from the shortlisting, interviews and ranking of candidates for the duration of the discussion and decision making on any of the above matters in which the member has a personal interest (e.g. as in the case of close relative and/or close friends who are applicants for the post).

Clause 12.1.3 provides that “A candidate may request that a member of the Interview Committee recuse himself/herself from the interview.”

16. After lodging a grievance, there was no resolution at the school, Circuit and District offices. He further stated that Mr. Kgolane’s presence during the interviews influenced the ranking by panel members. The Principal and the SGB Chairperson were former colleagues of the second respondent.
17. Ledile Shirley Phahlamohlake stated under oath that she was the chairperson of both the shortlisting and interview committee processes. On the day of the interviews, all candidates were called. She introduced the panel to the candidates who also introduced themselves to the panel members.
18. The applicant did not say or raise anything regarding the recused of any of the panel members. All the candidate were offered an opportunity to say something and nothing was raised by the applicant. They further asked the Unions, SADTU and PEU, who were in attendance if the process was fair and both respondent in the positive. The applicant was a SADTU member and his rights were protected.
19. She stated that the applicant never requested that Mr. Kgolane should recuse himself. The minutes of the interview committee at page 50 of Exhibit R confirm that all the candidates introduced themselves to the interview panel. The applicant was ranked no 5 with 57,8% whilst the second respondent was ranked no1 with 88,4%. It was stated that the second respondent was outstanding whilst the applicant was weak. The SGB also made a recommendation that the second respondent be appointed.
20. The second witness Mr. Letlamaga Kgolane stated under oath that he was a member of the interview committee. At the commencement of the interviews, a Department representative called all the candidates to introduced themselves. All the candidates were asked if they had anything against the panel. All the candidates raised no objection to the panel members.
21. He stated that the applicant and second respondent are his colleagues. He went to Cape Town at some stage with the applicant. He also went to Durban with the second respondent. All those trips were not arranged by the school. He denied that he was friends with the second respondent but were colleagues.

ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUEMENTS

22. The applicant referred an unfair labour practice dispute relating to promotion. This referral was occasioned by the first respondent’s decision of appointing the second respondent as Deputy Principal at Jane Furse Comprehensive School.
23. The crux of the dispute is that, on the date of the interviews, Mr. Kgolane L, a member of the interview committee, should have recused himself on the basis that he was a friend of the successful candidate, Mr. Mokgabudi L.R, the second respondent, Mr. Kgolane’s failure to recused himself contravened clauses 12.1.2 and 12.1.3 of the Collective Agreement 2 of 2020. These clauses were quoted earlier to this reward. The applicant referred to this non-recused as an irregularity and a conflict of interest. To substantiate his case, the applicant stated that Mr. Kgolane and the second respondent took trips together, one to Durban, had lunch together and share leisure. They are part of a stokvel.
24. Clause 12.1.2 requires that a member of a School Governing Body or an Interview Committee must withdraw from shortlisting, interview and ranking of candidates for the duration of the discussion and decision making in which he has a personal interest, for example, close relative or close friend. Mr. Kgolane, the panel member alleged to be a friend to the second respondent was called to testify. His testimony was that he is a colleague to both the applicant and second respondent. They serve in the School Management Team (SMT) at the same school. He also stated that he had lunch meal with the applicant and also had with the second respondent as colleagues. He also went to Cape Town with the applicant and went to Durban with the second respondent. This was not challenged. Mr. Kgolane denied that he is a friend to the second respondent. The applicant did not disclose that he went to Cape Town with Mr. Kgolane and whether that should be interpreted to near friendship. All these trips were outside of school arrangements. I also have to agree with Mr Kgolane that being part of a community group whose objection is help one another during specific events. For that, there is no need for friendship. I therefore find that the applicant failed to establish the alleged friendship between Mr. Kgolane and the second respondent. In addition, Mr. Kgolane denied this allegation.
25. Clause 12.1.3 provides a remedy for the applicant if he felt Mr. Kgolane was a friend to the second respondent. It provides that a candidate may request that a member of the Interview Committee recuse himself or herself from the interview. The applicant was aware of his provisions because he had recused himself previously where he was a friend of one of the candidates. Having this knowledge, the applicant should have requested for the recused of Mr. Kgolane from the Interview Committee if indeed he knew that he was a friend to the second respondent, then the applicant had a duty to disclose it and asked that Mr. Kgolane be recused. This he did not do. I therefore find that the applicant’s complaint and dispute lack any merit. The chairperson of the Interview Committee, Ms. Phahlamohlake came and confirmed that all the candidates, including the applicant, were called and introduced to the panel. They were also given an opportunity to raise any issue that they may have had. The applicant never raised any issue. He was satisfied with the constitution of the Interview Committee. The applicant’s dispute lacks merit and no foundation or basis was laid to challenge the process. The two Unions, including SADTU to which the applicant is a member, confirmed that the process was fair.
    AWARD
26. The first respondent’s decision to appoint the second respondent as Deputy Principal did not constitute any unfair labour practice.
27. The applicant’s referral is dismissed.

MN Masetla