05 May 2026 – ELRC1150-25/26NW

ARBITRATION AWARD

Case Number: ELRC1150-25/26NW
Commissioner: Simon Beesnaar
Date of Award: 04 May 2026

In the ARBITRATION between

SADTU obo Ramatolo, Mothusi Quincy
(Union/Applicant)

and

Department of Education – North West
(Respondent)

Union/Applicant’s representative: Mr. Vusi Moeng – FTSS (SADTU)
Union/Applicant’s address:

Telephone: 076 757 5996
Telefax:
E-mail: mongwakgotla.moeng@gmail.com

Respondent’s representative: Mr. Tumelo Bahurutshe – Assistant Director – LRs
Respondent’s address:

Telephone: 074 696 9907
Telefax:
E-mail: tbahurutshe@nwpg.gov.za

PARTICULARS OF THE HEARING AND REPRESENTATION

This is the award in the arbitration matter between SADTU on behalf of Ramatolo, Mothusi Quincy, the applicant and the Department of Education – NW Provincial Administration, the respondent.
The referral is in terms of section 191(5) (a) of the Labour Relations Act, 66 of 1995 as amended (herein referred to as “the LRA”) and the award is issued in terms of section 138(7) of the LRA.
The arbitration hearing was held virtually / online on 31 March 2026.
The applicant appeared in person and he was represented by Mr. Vusi Moeng from SADTU, in his capacity as Full-Time Shop Steward (FTSS). The respondent was represented by Mr. Tumelo Bahurutshe, in his capacity as Assistant Director-Labour Relations.
The parties submitted into evidence bundles of documents which were accepted as what they purported to be. The respondent’s bundle is referred to herein after as Annexure “A1-32” and he applicant’s bundle is Annexure “B1-11” and “C1-5”.
The proceedings were conducted in English and were manually and digitally recorded.

ISSUES TO BE DECIDED

The dispute is on the substantive and procedural fairness of the dismissal of Mr. Ramatolo. On the substantive fairness, the applicant contended that the respondent had no valid reason to terminate his Fixed Term Contract (FTC) of employment.
Further that the applicant reasonably expected the respondent to retain him on an indefinite basis otherwise referred to as ‘reasonable expectation for permanent employment’ in terms of the Collective Agreement 2 of 2024.
On the procedural fairness, the applicant contended that he was not given notice of termination of his FTC of employment. He was notified verbally on 12 January 2026 when the school re-opened.

BACKGROUND TO THE DISPUTE

The applicant was appointed on a FTC of employment for 12 months. It started on 1 January 2025 and ended on 31 December 2025. He was appointed on a substantive vacant PL1 Educator post at Reipuseng Secondary School. He earned R 27 802.00 per month.
While his FTC of employment ended on 31 December 2025, the applicant submitted that he was dismissed verbally by the School Principal on 12 January 2026. Nonetheless it is common cause that the School Principal had no authority to dismiss the Educator.
It is further common cause that there were amendments with regard to the needs of the school for a Setswana Educator.
Aggrieved by the termination of his FTC, the applicant approached his union for assistance. An unfair dismissal dispute was referred to the Council for conciliation. Conciliation was held on 10 February 2026 and failed to resolve the dispute.
The union then requested that the matter be resolved through arbitration. The relief sought is retrospective reinstatement on an indefinite basis.

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT
Respondent’s evidence and argument –

Ms. Dorothy Mohlamme is the Principal at Reipuseng Secondary School since 2018 to date. She knew the applicant because he was employed at the school from 1 January 2025 to 31 December 2025 on a FTC of employment.
Further that the applicant was appointed as an Educator on a substantive post. He was teaching History in Gr 10-12, Social Science and Life Orientation in Gr 9. She stated that a substantive post means an open post. Further that there is no teacher related to that post and the applicant was a teacher on that post.
She submitted that they had two types of posts and had employed temporary teachers on. One was a promotional post. When they received a Principal, Deputy Principal or Departmental Head then the teacher would have to vacate that post. Therefore, a temporary post would come to an end.
The affected teacher would be given notice accordingly and the relevant one gets appointed to that post. She maintained that with regard to the substantive post, the teacher might be converted to become permanent. In that circumstance the teacher would not be leaving because someone is coming to fill that post.
A5 is the appointment letter of the applicant. It stipulates that he was appointed on temporary capacity from 1 January 2025 to 31 December 2025. The bottom part of this letter was read into the records pertaining to notice period. She maintained that the applicant was made aware of the contents of this letter when he assumed his duties, that he was appointed on a FTC.
A19 was his assumption of duties that he completed, indicating that he started on this date and that the termination date being 31 December 2025. She then signed it as the School Principal. She maintained that the applicant was not appointed on indefinite basis as indicated on this document. The Head of Department could have indicated that he should be converted to permanent post, but that was not the case.
His appointment was for 12 months only. On 6 November 2025 she gave him notice/letter in the presence of other two Educators. She explained the contents thereof and he acknowledged receipt and signed it. A witness also signed. It was a notice of termination of his FTC of employment. While she tried to make a copy of that letter, the applicant blocked her from doing that. He said the letter was not supposed to be hand written and should have been from HR.
She then contacted the Circuit Manager in that regard in his presence and that was explained to him. He nonetheless insisted that he wanted that letter typed. She submitted that the applicant then forcefully grabbed the letter from her and he left the school premises. She never had an opportunity to make a copy of that letter ever since.
A32 is the incident report on what happened as the description of activities. This served as proof that he was given notice of termination of his FTC. He left and never came back until 13 January 2026. He was called to SMT meeting and he was again informed about the termination. She refuted that she dismissed him verbally. While she tried to give him notice in November 2025, he grabbed the letter and left with it.
Under cross examination she submitted that she had two substantive posts. One was a promotional post for DH. The other promotional post was for Deputy DH. She conceded that the applicant occupied one substantive post. She stated that a teacher on a substantive post must be converted to permanent after three months according to the CA 2 of 2024. She stated that two of her substantive posts which met the requirements were converted as per the CA.
She then requested a swap as per A20 on 11 August 2025. The applicant was to move from a substantive post to be hired against PL2 post and Kobedi was moved from PL2 to the substantive post. From 4 posts she had two against promotional posts were Setswana Teachers, teaching from Gr 9-12. Then post for Deputy was advertised for Languages and DH for Humanities.
She considered the need for a Setswana Teacher at the school, hence the request to swap the History Teacher with a Setswana Teacher as per A20 to avoid the predicament they were going to face with. Further that it was all discussed in the staff meeting. In her opinion, she did what was best for the school by retaining a Setswana and Tourism Teacher and letting go of History Teacher. Her decision was communicated to HR and the Circuit Manager and they had no problem with that.

Applicant’s evidence and argument –

Mr. Mothusi Quincy Ramatolo stated that he applied for employment and that was for a substantive post as per A1. A5 was his appointment letter and was not made aware of as it was not given to him. He was appointed effective from 1 January 2025 until 31 December 2025, which was his termination date.
He maintained that he was not given notice of his termination. He came to the school after they re-opened in January 2026. On 12 January 2026 he was then notified verbally by the School Principal that his FTC of employment has been terminated. Further that he did not sign any other letter except for his contract of employment.
He maintained that he was not made aware of the request for swap made by the School Principal which ended his contract. He maintained that he should have been converted to permanent post in terms of the CA 2 of 2024. That should have happened after three months into the substantive post.
Further that he was aware that some conversions took place at the school but he was excluded. When he approached the School Principal he was not given a definitive answer, until he was notified verbally about his termination towards the end of the year. The School Principal also informed him verbally about the swap and he was not consulted in that regard.
Under cross examination he conceded that he was appointed on 1 January 2025 on a FTC until 31 December 2025. He maintained that he was not given his appointment letter by the School Principal. He intimated that he was appointed on a temporary but substantive post. He confirmed that he was teaching History, Social Sciences and Life Orientation.

ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT

This is a referral in terms of section 191 of the LRA. The applicant seeks indefinite reinstatement in terms of CA 2 of 2024. In determining the dispute between the parties, I considered the provisions of the LRA and the Code of Good Practice: Dismissal (herein referred to as “the Code”) and came to the following findings.
Section 185 of the LRA stipulates that every employee has the right not to be unfairly dismissed or to be subjected to an unfair labour practice.
In section 192 it is further stipulated that if the applicant has established the existence of a dismissal the burden of proof, on a balance of probabilities that the applicant’s dismissal was fair, rests with the employer. In this particular matter, it is common cause that the applicant was appointed on a FTC of employment effective from 1 January 2025 until 31 December 2025. Essentially it was a 12 months’ contract.
The evidence suggests that he was appointed on a substantive teaching post. In terms of CA 2 of 2024 his temporary post should be converted to permanency after three months. That did not happen. I fail to understand as to why he had to wait until the end of his FTC to raise the issue of his conversion. The applicant contended that the respondent had no valid reason to terminate his contract. According to A20, there was a REQUEST TO SWAP POSTS made by the School Principal, Ma’am Mohlamme.
The applicant was teaching History, Social Science and Life Orientation. According to the School Principal, they were faced with a predicament for a Setswana Teacher, hence the request to swap posts, one that the applicant and another Kobedi were occupying. According to her they were going to have two Teachers in History while there was a need for a Setswana Teacher for Gr 9 and 10.
She therefore came to a conclusion that it would be in the best interest of the school to retain a Setswana Teacher and letting go of History Teacher. In my view she had to prioritize the needs of the school versus that of the Teacher/s. While the applicant submitted that he was not consulted, I am of the opinion that was justifiable under the circumstances.
The applicant was aware that his contract had a start and an end date as it was fixed. In Sindane v Prestige Cleaning Services (2010) 31 ILJ 733 (LC) the Court held that a fixed-term contract terminates by operation of law at the end of its term. Such termination does not constitute a “dismissal”.
I also considered what the Labour Appeals Court said in Enforce Security Group v Mwalase and 46 others (DA 24/15) (2017) 38 ILJ 1041 (LAC); [2017] 8 BLLR 745 (LAC) (handed down on 25 January 2017). The Court provided clarity on the application of fixed-term eventuality contracts and affirmed that section 186(1) clearly defined instances that bring about the termination of employment which would be regarded as dismissal. This means that an employment contract can be terminated in a number of ways which do not constitute dismissal as defined in section 186(1) of the LRA, and one such instance would be a fixed-term employment contract entered into for a specific period or upon the happening of a particular event. Once the event agreed to between the Employer and its Employees materializes, there would ordinarily be no dismissal.
The Court held that where the employees were employed specifically for the service provision contract, the termination of that contract is a legitimate event that would by agreement give rise to automatic termination of the employment contracts. This constitutes an automatic termination of the contract by operation of law and not a dismissal.
Finally, it was the applicant’s contention that he was not given proper notice at the end of his contract. He submitted that he was notified verbally on 12 January 2026 by the School Principal. I took note of Ms. Mohlamme’s uncontested evidence, that in November 2025 he notified the applicant of termination of his FTC in the presence of two teachers. While she tried to explain that to him, he forcefully grabbed the letter and did not give it back.
An incident was also reported / recorded on the day in question as the description of the activity. I am therefore not persuaded by the applicant’s version that he was not given proper notice of termination of his FTC of employment.
In the result, I make the award hereafter –