ARBITRATION

AWARD

Panellist/s: Seretse Masete
Case No.: ELRC 1280-25/26LP
Date of Award: 04 MAY 2026

In the ARBITRATION between:

Matome Mathews Letsoalo

(Union / Applicant)

                                                                                And

Education Department of Limpopo

(Respondent)

Union/Applicant’s representative: Setati NS from PEU
Union/Applicant’s address:
Telephone:
Cell:

Respondent’s representative: Eric Nyathela

Respondent’s address:
Telephone:
Cell:

Particulars of the proceedings and representation

1. The matter was held on 21 April 2026 at the employer’s premises in Polokwane.
2. The Applicant, Matome Mathews Letsoalo (employee), was represented by, Setati Ngoepe Sylvester, a union representative from PEU, while the respondent, Education Department of Limpopo (employer), was represented by Eric Nyathela.
3. The proceedings were conducted in English and digitally voice recorded.
4. The words educator(s) and teacher(s) will hereafter be used interchangeably referring to the same people.

Issues to be determined

5. Whether or not the employer correctly interpreted and or applied theELRC Collective Agreement 4 of 2016 (the Resolution) when declaring the employee in excess.

Background and Nature of the dispute

6. The employee was employed as an educator on 01 June 2012 at Maba Secondary School within Mamaila Circuit.
7. Healleged to have been unfairly declared in excess during the 2025 process of Redeployment and Rationalisation(RnR), because the employer failed to follow LIFO (paragraph B.6.4.2.4).
8. He believed the employer incorrectly interpreted and or incorrectly applied the Resolution and sought the process to be redone.
9. The employer presented that LIFO was the last resort and the employer considered the operational requirements at the time and the Resolution was fully complied with. They considered the subjects the educator was teaching at that time and he (the employee) was the one who requested to teach those subjects. The employee’s dispute should therefore be dismissed.
10. The employer submitted one bundle of documents marked R and called one witness and the employee testified and called another witness to corroborate his version, and submitted no bundle of documents.
    Common issues. The employee was declared in excess. His teaching profile was Sepedi and Geography.
    Disputed issues. LIFO.Paragraph B 6.4.2.4,was supposed to have been applied on posts, 7, 8,13, appearing on page 22 of bundle R.

Evidence by the employee party
The employee, Matome Mathews Letsoalo, testified under oath as follows:

11. His name did not appear on page 22 of bundle R, which was the list of the teachers not affected by RnR. He was supposed to have been absorbed in post 7 or 8 or 13. He specialised in Sepedi and Geography. In terms of post 7, he has been teaching Sepedi since 2012 to date and LO since 2017 to date. Malatjie started teaching LO in 2025 and he (employee) was more experienced in Sepedi than Malatji. In post 8, Raolane was teaching Geography and English and not SS. He (employee) once taught Geography in grade 10 in 2018. He had more experience than Raolane. Raleaka was teaching SS. He (employee) taught SS from 2012 to 2018. All the competing teachers did not have SS as major subjects. Raolane was teaching History. All the three educators came after him and he was capable of teaching all the subjects they were teaching.
12. He agreed that curriculum needs were first to consider during RnR. He also conceded that the first thing to consider in curriculum needs were qualifications. It was put to him that Malatjie, had Sepedi, Geography and LO, and he (employee) did not have LO. He conceded that he could not match with Malatji and he did not have LO and the employer was therefore fair in absorbing Malatjie.
13. Post 8, Ms Raolane LI (Raolane), was teaching Geography and English and she qualified in those subjects. He conceded that he did not have qualifications and experience to teach English. It was put to him that the employer was fair to absorb Ms Raolane. He agreed.
14. Post 13, Raleaka P, qualified in History and Geography. He agreed that SS included History and Geography but there was a qualification called SS at the university as a major subjects. His profile/qualification was Sepedi and Geography. It was put to him that Raleaka fits the post more than him because he had History and Geography. He disagreed and said Raleaka did not have SS as a major subject. It was put to him that there was no major subject called SS at universities, hence there was no educator with SS as a major subject on the profiles. He maintained that he knew so because there were students with SS as major subjects who came to do practical teaching at the school, but he did not have evidence to corroborate. It was put to him that the Principal would come and testify that there were no major subjects called social sciences (SS). He did not comment.

2nd witness, Selowa Alpheus Mafikana, testified under oath as follows:

15. He was working at Maba Secondary School and knew the employee. There were some meetings at the school, but the inputs about LIFO were not taken into consideration by the Principal. The teachers who were competing with the employee had less experience than him. The employee would fit in post 7 because he could teach both Sepedi and LO as he attended workshops thereof.
16. The employee also fits in post 8, because he could teach Geography and English as he did English as one of the additional subjects. According to his knowledge, a person who did not specialise in a subject, but attended workshops, would be better than the one who is qualified. As long as a teacher attended a workshop, he could teach a subject he never taught before and not having specialised in it. Letsoalo was more knowledgeable because he taught LO since 2018.
17. He could not refer anywhere to corroborate that someone with more experience can be more knowledgeable than the one with qualifications. It was put to him that curriculum, was referring to the subjects, and he agreed. It was put to him that the ability to teach was measured by the qualifications. He answered that he did not know what to say. He nevertheless conceded that the first thing to check whether a person could teach English was the qualifications. He further conceded that subject qualifications should be first to consider. He did not have Malatjie’s profile. He agreed that he did not have authority to analyse the profiles of other educators.

Evidence by the employer party
1st witness of the employer, Lebopa Ntswaki Florence (the principal), testified under oath as follows;

18. She was the Principal of the school and knew the employee. She was the one responsible for the curriculum needs of the school. She allocated teachers according to their competencies and qualifications. She allocated teachers in terms of qualifications and the number of classes. Qualifications would be considered first. The curriculum of the school is constituted by qualifications. Post 13 was occupied by Raleaka who had History which included SS while Letsoalo had Geography but not SS. She did not have any aspirant teachers coming to teach SS but Geography at the school. It would be a problem with a teacher who qualified with Geography to teach SS as compared to the one who qualified in History.
19. Competency manifested itself through the results but competency needed to be coupled with qualifications for the purpose of RnR. The employee was once allocated the subjects he did not qualify in, because there was a shortage of educators. Initially Social Sciences were not separated, but currently it isstandalone subjects. It was put to her that the employee was not supposed to have been declared in excess because he had more experience than the others. She answered that the employee even requested to swap the subjects citing that he could not make it in Grade 11, see page 38 of bundle R. He (employee) also once requested her to take his subjects and that he be given Arts and Culture (not disputed).
20. In closing, the employer indicated that although the employee indicated that he should have been absorbed in post 7 or 8 or 13 , he later conceded that the employer was fair to have not absorbed him in post 7 and 8. He conceded that he did not have English and that the employer was fair in absorbing Raolane. With regard to post 13, the employee conceded that he did not have History which Social Science (SS) was part of. There was no provision that experience was considered ahead of qualifications. Geography and SS were taught separately. Competency was the ability to teach the subjects. He who alleges, should prove and the employee had a duty to prove that the conduct of the employer was unfair but he failed to do so. It was their prayer that the dispute be dismissed.

Analysis of evidence

21. The dispute before me was that the employer failed to interpret and apply paragraph B.6.4.2.4 of the ELRC Collective Agreement 4 of 2016 in that it declared the employee in excess when he had more experience than the other educators.
22. During the cross examination, the employee conceded that the employer was fair to absorb Malatjie and Raolane, see paragraphs 12 and 13 above. He also conceded that qualifications were more important when conducting the RnR process in order to determine the curriculum needs of the school. His argument was that he was not supposed not to have been declared in excess, because he could teach SS. However, he could not deny that Raleaka had a degree in History which included SS. He did not deny the version put to him that an educator with history would be preferable to teach SS than the one with Geography and Sepedi.
23. When it was put to him that Raleaka fits post 13 because he had History and Geography, he argued that Raleaka did not have SS as a major subjects. He argued that there were aspirant teachers who majored in SS and they came to the school and taught SS. When he was requested to produce any proof that SS was offered as a major subject in some university, he did not have it. He was also asked to prove that there were aspirant teachers who majored in SS, but he failed to prove it as well. He was told that the Principal would come and deny such allegations, and the Principal indeed denied such allegations. The employee did not challenge the Principal during her testimony to that effect.
24. My finding on the balance of probabilities is that, Raleaka was more qualified to teach Geography and SS than the employee, as he (Raleaka) even had a degree in History which the employee did not have. It was the employee’s testimony that his profile was Geography and Sepedi and not SS. In terms of curriculum needs, it is my take that having declared the employee in excess was fair. The employee also did not dispute the Principal’s evidence when she testified that he requested to be relieved of his subjects and be given Arts and Culture because he was not coping in teaching grade 11 Geography, and that was corroborated in writing on page 38 of bundle R. In the light of all the above, I am satisfied that the employer did not fail to interpret and apply Collective Agreement 4 of 2016 (the Resolution) particularly paragraph B.6.4.2.4

Award

25. The employer did not fail to interpret and or apply Collective Agreement 4 of 2016 including the guidelines of conducting RnR process at the time of declaring the employee in excess.
26. The employee’s case is dismissed.
27. No order as to costs.

S.A. Masete (ELRC Panellist) 04/05/2026