Panellist/s: Seretse Masete
Case No.: ELRC253-26/27LP
Date of Award: 06/08/2026

In the ARBITRATION between:

Khasane Mametja

(Union / Applicant)

                                                                                And

Education Department of Limpopo

(Respondent)

Union/Applicant’s representative: Khasane Mametja (self-representation)
Union/Applicant’s address:
Telephone:
Cell:

Respondent’s representative: Portia Modipa

Respondent’s address:
Telephone:
Cell:
2nd Respondent’s representative: The second respondent Rahanya T, did not attend.

Particulars of the proceedings and representation

1. The matter was held on 03 August 2026 at the employer’s premises in Polokwane.
2. Khasane Mametja (employee), represented himself, while Education Department of Limpopo, (employer), was represented by Portia Modipa.
3. Rahanya T(second respondent) did not attend. I proceeded with the matter in the absence of the second respondent because the employee did not argue that he was the best candidate. Secondly the employee did not argue that the appointed candidate was not suitable for the post. Thirdly, he challenged the composition of the interview panel. In the fourth place, there was no reason provided for the second respondent’s absence. I could not postpone the case because the absence of the second respondent would not materially affect the case on the balance of probabilities.
4. The proceedings were in English and digitally voice recorded.

Issues to be determined.

5. Whether or not the conduct of the employer of constituting one interviewing panel for two different subjects at the same school constituted an unfair labour practice against the employee and if so, grant the appropriate relief.

Background and Nature of the dispute

6. The employee was employed as an educator on 17 April 2013 at Motloboni Combined school under Modjadji Circuit, earning R33,217-00 per month at the time of the dispute.
7. He challenged the conduct of the employer for having established one interviewing panel for two different posts with different subjects.
8. He believed that the conduct of the employer amounted to unfair labour practice pertaining to promotion and sought the shortlisting process to be re-done and that two interviewing panels be constituted.
9. The employer presented that they followed Resolution 2 of 2020 (the Resolution) and complied with paragraph 5.2 thereof. There will therefore be no re-shortlisting and or composition of two panels.
10. The employer representative testified as a sole witness and submitted one bundle of documents marked R. The employee testified as a sole witness as well and submitted no bundle of documents.
    Common cause issues. The employee was an educator at Motloboni school. There were two Departmental Head (DH) posts (Geography and Sepedi) which were advertised. One interviewing panel was constituted for both the posts. The employee applied but he was not shortlisted. The applicable policy in the matter is ELRC Resolution 2 of 2020.
    Disputed issues. The use of one interviewing panel to adjudicate over two different subjects

Survey of evidence by the employee party.
The employee, Khasane Mametja, testified under oath as follows;

11. There were two promotional posts advertised at the school, DH for Sepedi and Geography respectively. He felt he should have been shortlisted. He expected to see two panels but there was only one panel. He was so concerned because the collective agreement on page 14 of bundle R, paragraph 5.1.1 (a) provides for additional members with skills to be co-opted. There was therefore supposed to have been a panel with skills in Geography and one with skills in Sepedi. He suspected that the post was reserved for the wife of the principal of Maolwe school, although he could not prove it. He got advice from the union to refer the matter to the Council since the circuit did not give him an ear but only responded to him through a letter. The district office was contacted but they did not even listen to him. He therefore referred the dispute to the Council. The employer did not interpret the resolution correctly.
12. He linked paragraph 5.1.1(a) of the resolution in that; the panel should have had competency and skills for the particular subjects. The panel members might have been competent, but out of five members, three of them should have been the DH overseeing geography and the other one Sepedi. He knew the panel members when he saw them, some were teaching at primary schools. His view was that when someone was teaching at primary school, chances were that they might not have had competencies for secondary school subjects. He however, agreed that paragraph 5.1.1(a) to (d) were guidelines. He conceded that paragraph 5.1.2, of the Resolution, did not provide for two panels but was worried about the competency of the panel members. It was put to him that he was the one who was supposed to prove that the panel was incompetent. He had no comment. It was put to him that he did not have facts for his dispute. He answered that he did not agree.
13. In closing, the employee emphasised the use of one panel to have been unfair. The commissioner should look at page 14, paragraph 5.1.1(a) which states that, additional members of the interview committee maybe co-opted by the SGB on the basis of competency and skills and should hold an equivalent/ higher post than the one advertised. If the selected members did not have competencies and skills, that would disadvantage the candidates. There must be a proof beyond reasonable doubt that the panel members have skills.

Survey of evidence by the employer party.
The employer representative, Mokgadi Portia Modipa , testified under oath as follows:

14. There were two posts at the school, and indeed, one panel was constituted guided by paragraph 5.1.2 of the Resolution which provided how the interview committee should be composed. The employer complied with the Resolution, and the stake holders were also invited. The stake holders like labour observers, were present to check if there were some irregularities or not and none was reported. There was no clause in the Resolution which prevented the school from constituting one interviewing panel. The only time where two panels would be constituted is when there is more than one post, but at different schools, (see paragraph 5.1.2(f) of the Resolution).
15. Her understanding of paragraph 5.1.1(a) of the resolution was that additional members with skills and or at a higher rank could be co-opted where necessary.
16. In closing, the employer acknowledged to have used one panel for two subjects at the same school. There was nothing preventing the panel from doing so. The employee did not lead evidence to corroborate that there were members who did not have skills or occupied lower positions. Only when the posts are more than one and for different schools could the employer constitute two panels. Analysis of Evidence and Argument
17. The issue in dispute is whether the employer committed an unfair labour practice relating to promotion by constituting one interview panel to interview candidates for two different Departmental Head posts (Geography and Sepedi), contrary to the applicable collective agreement. The statutory provision, in terms of which this tribunal may arbitrate promotion disputes, is to be found in section 186(2)(a) of the LRA which defines unfair labour practices with regard to promotion as follows, “unfair labour practice’ means any act or omission that arises between an employer and an employee involving….unfair conduct by the employer relating to promotion…….of an employee.” In the current matter, the employee relied primarily on his interpretation of paragraph 5.1.1(a) of the Resolution, which state that, additional members of the interview committee maybe co-opted by the SGB on the basis of competency and skills and should hold an equivalent/ higher post than the one advertised. He contended that because the posts required expertise in different subjects, the employer ought to have constituted two separate interview panels or, alternatively, ensured that the majority of the panel members possess subject-specific expertise. His concern was that some panel members were from primary schools and therefore, in his view, might not have possessed the necessary competencies to assess candidates for secondary school Departmental Head posts. However, the employee’s evidence remained largely speculative. He also conceded that: paragraph 5.1.1(a) merely permits the co-option of additional members with the requisite skills and that paragraph 5.1.2 does not require the constitution of two interview panels.
18. He had no evidence that any panel member lacked the required qualifications or occupied a lower rank than prescribed; and his suspicion that the post had been reserved for another candidate could not be proved. His evidence therefore amounted to assumptions rather than proof of procedural irregularity. The employer, on the other hand, relied on the wording of the Resolution. Its evidence was that paragraph 5.1.2 regulates the composition of interview committees and nowhere prohibits one panel from interviewing candidates for more than one post at the same school. The employer further explained that paragraph 5.1.2(f) contemplates separate panels only where posts are situated at different schools. This interpretation is consistent with the wording of the Resolution and was not meaningfully challenged by the employee.
19. Regarding paragraph 5.1.1(a), the language is permissive rather than mandatory. It provides that additional members may be co-opted based on competency and skills. It does not require that such members must be co-opted in every case, nor does it prescribe that each advertised subject must have its own specialist panel. Consequently, the mere absence of subject specialists does not, without more, constitute non-compliance with the Resolution. In unfair labour practice disputes relating to promotion, the employee bears the onus of proving that the employer acted unfairly. Mere dissatisfaction with the employer’s interpretation of the collective agreement or speculation regarding the competence of interview panel members is insufficient.
20. The courts have consistently held that commissioners should not interfere with an employer’s recruitment decisions unless they are shown to have been arbitrary, capricious, mala fide, or materially inconsistent with the applicable procedures, See Noonan v Safety and Security Sectoral Bargaining Council and Others (PA 1/11) [2012] ZALAC 9; (2012) 33 ILJ 2597 (LAC); [2012] 9 BLLR 876 (LAC), which recognises that procedural irregularities must be material and capable of rendering the selection process unfair. It was further held in Ndlovu v CCMA and others (D544/99[2000] ZALC 153, that interference with an appointment is reserved for cases where it is shown that the employee would probably have been appointed, which is not the case here. There was no evidence led to corroborate that: the panel was improperly constituted under paragraph 5.1.2, any member lacked the prescribed rank, any candidate was prejudiced by the composition of the panel, the interview outcomes were affected by bias or incompetence; and over and above, that the Resolution expressly required separate panels for different subject posts within the same school. Accordingly, the employee failed on the balance of probabilities to discharge the onus of proving that the employer committed an unfair labour practice.
21. My finding is therefore that the employee has failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the employer acted unfairly in constituting one interview panel for the two Departmental Head posts. The Resolution does not require separate interview panels for different subject posts at the same school. Paragraph 5.1.1(a) permits, but does not oblige, the School Governing Body to co-opt additional members with relevant competencies. Furthermore, the employee produced no evidence that the panel members were unqualified, occupied inappropriate ranks, or that the composition of the panel materially prejudiced the selection process. The employee’s complaint is based largely on conjecture rather than proven procedural irregularities. In the absence of evidence demonstrating that the employer failed to comply with the Resolution or that the recruitment process was rendered unfair, there is no basis for interference with the employer’s decision. In the light of the all the above, the following award is issued. Award
22. The conduct of the employer by not constituting two interview panels did not constitute an unfair labour practice against the employee.
23. The employee’s case is dismissed.
24. No order as to costs.

Seretse Masete
ELRC Panellist