IN THE EDUCATION LABOUR RELATION COUNCIL
Case Number – ELRC784-25/26GP
PANELLIST: MMAKGARE SHAI
DATE : 06 July 2026
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
THABISO LAZARUS THUBAKGALE APPLICANT
And
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION- GAUTENG 1ST RESPONDENT
MR RACHARD RIHLAMPFU 2ND RESPONDENT

ARBITRATION AWARD

DETAILS OF HEARING AND REPRESENTATION

1. The arbitration hearing was held on the 12th of February 2026, 4th to 5th of March 2026, 17th of March 2026, 19th of March 2026, 13th of April 2026, 4th of May 2026, 27th of May 2026, and 3rd of June 2026 via Online Media.
2. Both parties were present. The applicant, Mr. Thabiso Lazarus Thobakgale was represented by Ms. Amanda Moloto, a legal practitioner from Moloto Moyo Attorneys, whereas the respondent was represented by Mr. Themba Tshangela, its Industrial Relations Officer. The second respondent, Mr. Richard Rihlamvhu was represented by Mr. Kaizer Mashilo, a SADTU official.
3. The parties filed written closing arguments at the end of the proceedings and same were considered herein.
4. The proceedings were digitally recorded.

ISSUE TO BE DETERMINED

5. I am called upon to determine whether the 1st respondent by not appointing the applicant into the principal position he applied for was both procedurally and substantively fair or not. In the event I find that the failure to appoint him as aforesaid was unfair or amounted to an Unfair Labour Practice, I will determine an appropriate remedy for him. If not, I will absolve the 1st respondent.
   BACKGROUND TO THE ISSUE
6. The applicant has referred an Unfair Labour Practice dispute to the Council. The applicant applied for a principal position at Tlamatlama Primary School where he acted as a principal for a period of twenty-one months, on the 6th of December 2023.
7. The applicant was shortlisted and interviewed and was the second recommended candidate on the basis of scores and motivation. Once he became aware of the appointment of the 2nd respondent, he lodged a dispute with the Council.
8. The applicant was of the view that the decision not to appoint him amounted to Unfair Labour Practice as he possesses the skills for the post as opposed to the 2nd respondent. Further that the 2nd respondent made misrepresentation in the application for the post. Further that he was the most suitable candidate based on qualifications and experience. He contended further that the constitution of the selection and interview panel was flawed in that some members were not supposed to form part of the panel.
   There were inconsistencies in the manner scores were allocated. Further that the district was complicit in respect of the misrepresentation that took place, for example assisting the 2nd respondent to rectify certain aspects to comply with the requirements and in respect of submission of a clearance certificate.
9. The applicant prayed to be appointed to the Tlamatlama Primary School or alternative he be granted a protected promotion.
10. On the other hand, the 1st respondent denied all the allegations above and insisted that the 2nd respondent would prove during the trial that all prescripts were followed and that the 2nd respondent was a better candidate.

SURVEY OF EVIDENCE FOR THE APPLICANT
MR THABISO LAZARUS THOBAKGALE TESTIFIED ON HIS BEHALF UNDER OATH AS FOLLOWS

11. He is employed by the 1st respondent as a PL3 educator and stationed at Tlamatlama Primary School. He occupied the position since April 2021.
12. The principal position at Tlamatlama Primary School became vacant. He applied for the position but was not appointed. He, however, believed that he was a better candidate than the 2nd respondent because he was appointed as an acting principal for the school from the 1st of January 2024 to the 30th of September 2025.
13. He possesses the following qualifications:
    • BED degree
    • BED specializing in ICT
    • In addition to this he has NQF 9 (National Qualification Framework) level 8, which is equivalent to an Honours degree
    • Post graduate diploma in Education management
    • Certificate for a short course in Early learning for 2021st century Education
    • Certificate of attendance for Computer Literacy and
    • Certificate of participation in AMESA. Further that he is at the level of REQV 16 in terms of qualifications
14. In comparison with the 2nd respondent, the applicant has a post graduate diploma equivalent to an honors degree, three qualifications, whereas the 2nd respondent has only two qualifications. He, the applicant has two honors degrees whereas the 2nd respondent has one honors degree. The 2nd respondent is at level of REQV 14, whereas he is at REQV 16.
15. In terms of experience, he has acted in the position of principal for a period of 21 months, and the 2nd respondent does not have any. Further that he was appointed as a deputy principal in March 2015 whereas, the 2nd respondent was appointed as such in May 2016. He has one year more experience than the 2nd respondent at this level too. He is therefore more qualified and more experienced than the 2nd respondent.
16. With regards to the 2nd respondent’s application form, the 2nd respondent answered positively when asked if he has criminal conviction. The form requires that he attach a clearance certificate, which he did not do at the time the application was submitted. The submission was done after recommendation was done. According to him, he should not have been interviewed without the clearance certificate. He believes that the district was aiding him in the application. The said clearance is dated 02 May 2025 whereas the submission of the application form was done on the 05 December 2024.
17. Furthermore, there was a delay in finalizing the appointment. According to him the delay was meant to allow the 2nd respondent to obtain the clearance certificate.
18. He was told that his application was not the initial application submitted for the post.
19. In so far as the constitution of the selection and interview panel, Mr. Maebelo was co-opted in a meeting he attended. According to him, the SGB should have met and agreed to co-opt him, thus invited to the meeting of the panel, not the school governing body. According to him, Mr. Maebelo should not have been co-opted because a department representative Mr. Mphahane was present. Further Mr. Maebelo was co-opted without the permission of the Department as required by collective agreement.
20. With regards to scoring, the 2nd respondent was scored 4 instead of 3 as he did not have a master’s degree. On the computer literacy where the maximum was 3, the 2nd respondent was given 4 by one of the panelists. Further that the minimum required experience was 7+ experience. According to him, the 2nd respondent was not supposed to have been shortlisted. Mr. Maebelo, the co-opted member, appeared to be scoring the 2nd respondent the highest and according to him he had the 2nd respondent’s mandate to ensure that he is appointed.

CROSS EXAMINATION

21. The 2nd respondent did not meet the minimum requirements because he did not attach a clearance certificate, same was obtained after the recommendation and is irregular. Further that the 2nd respondent was over scored which is irregular.
22. He insisted that he was more knowledgeable and more qualified than the 2nd respondent. He denied that the 2nd respondent is more qualified and more experienced than him because in addition to more superior qualifications, he had acted in the position for 21 months and that meant he had more job knowledge than him as he did not act in the position.
23. There was inconsistency by the interview panel. In so far as motivation was concerned. The panel considered the experience and qualifications of the 2nd respondent, whereas in his respect no comment was made regarding these factors. This meant that the panel was biased against him.
    MS EMILY MOCHELA TESTIFIED UNDER OATH AS FOLLOWS
24. She is employed as Human Resource Officer, and has twenty years in the division, Human Resource Provisioning. Her duties are recruitment and ensuring that the schools have staff.
25. She was involved in the recruitment process that appointed the 2nd respondent. Before the recruitment began, the school governing body was taken through training on selection, interview and recommendation. In addition, criteria are formulated and those that do not meet the criteria are sifted out.
26. Further that the school governing body are allowed to co-opt a knowledgeable member of the community. The co-opted person and the resource person appointed by the department may also participate in the scoring.
27. In the current dispute, the school governing body established criteria. In the shortlisting, the following are considered:
     Qualifications and experience
     Management experience
     Skills
     Extra mural activities and
     Gender
28. During the interview, the panel must agree on a set of questions, criteria, conduct one-on-one interviews and make recommendations of three candidates in order of preference.
29. With regards to Tlamatlama primary school, she picked up no flaws. There was no misrepresentation she picked up on the 2nd respondent’s application form.
30. When it was put to her that the clearance certificate must be attached to the application form, she said she does not have any comment. However, when pressed further, she said it was eventually attached even though she did not see the document. She can’t remember whether at the time the file was given to the director, the clearance certificate was there or not.
31. On receipt of the recommendation, they had to do quality assurance, and it was then discovered that the 2nd respondent had a criminal offence record, and the director was informed on the issue on the 23rd of October 2024. The director signed off the appointment on the 29th of May 2025 and does not know why it took seven months for him to sign it off.
32. When asked how the clearance certificate was submitted to the district, she said she was informed that the 2nd respondent submitted it to the deputy director, Human Resource and assumed that the latter gave it to the director.
33. With regards to the appointment of Mr. Maebelo as a co-opted member, she said although she does not see any minutes to that effect, there should be a document somewhere relating to his appointment. She further admitted that the 2nd respondent was over scored by 1 point on qualifications and Computer Literacy, however he was short scored on experience. According to her, seven years was the minimum experience required.
34. Further that, the way the clearance certificate was submitted was correct as it was given to the deputy director and the director.
35. The interview results are based on the interactions, and the fact that the applicant acted in a position did not entitle him to the position. According to her, the 2nd respondent was a better candidate based on the scoring and motivation.
36. According to her, qualifications and experience are acknowledged at shortlisting. At the interview, interaction outcomes are the only issues acknowledged there.

MR GREGORY MPHAHANE TESTIFIED UNDER OATH AS FOLLOWS:

37. He was a resource person at the selection and interview in the current dispute. According to him, the process was fair from the selection up to the interview level. Mr. Maebelo was according to him properly co-opted. The panel was properly constituted.
38. On the 31st of August 2023, the process started and he guided them, the agenda was drawn and adopted. They started with the process. Candidates were scored according to the criteria. After scoring, there was verification and calculations of the scores. He picked up no error and candidates were properly shortlisted.
39. Where there are duplicate applications, the other one is discarded. The application form does not compel candidates to attach documents. According to him, the documents must be submitted at the interview despite the form indicating that they are attached. At this stage, Mr. Tshangela, the 1st respondent’s representative, conceded that the 2nd respondent did not submit the clearance certificate at the interview but at a later stage. He ultimately conceded that the document must be attached to the application. He conceded further that the 2nd respondent was over scored on qualification and computer literacy.
40. He conceded further that qualifications and experience were not used as tools in the interview assessment.
41. He denied that they were biased because the panel used qualifications and experience in so far as the 2nd respondent is concerned but failed to do so when it came to the applicant. However, he later said he won’t dispute that they may have been biased when both motivations were read to him.

CROSS EXAMINATION
Clearance certificate may be submitted later than the completion of the interview process. He, however, does not know if failure to submit the clearance certificate should lead to disqualification or not.

MR PETER NKOSI TESTIFIED UNDER OATH AS FOLLOWS

42. He was employed as a Deputy Chief Education Specialist and head of Unit, Labour Relations. He held the position from 2019 – 2025. He is now retired.
43. His duties included chairing disciplinary hearings and dealing with labour disputes and advising the director on labour issues.
44. In this case of Tlamatlama, his director invited him towards the end of 2024, asking for some advice. He told him that there were two schools where aspiring principals failed to declare that they have criminal records. It was Tlamatlama Primary school and Usizolorethu School. He advised him that if they failed to declare they must be disqualified. In 2025 he engaged Ms. Emily Mochela who confirmed the above position.
45. At one of the executive meetings, the applicant approached him about the application at Tlamatlama. He wanted to lodge grievance. His advice was that the time frame for this had lapsed and he must wait for the appointment and lodge a dispute.
46. Sometime between January and April 2025, the director called him again. In good faith he said, he has a problem with the recommended candidate because he failed to declare criminal record.
47. When Ms. Moloto asked him to come to testify, he had to consult with the director, the latter however did not honor the appointment. Before this, he had met Ms. Mochela. He told her that he was going to testify about the issue, she however snapped. He has proof of request for the appointment with her.
48. When she received the dispute from the applicant in October 2025, he went to Ms. Mochela to inform her about it. She referred him to one Lolo (Lawrence) Nkanyane. He then requested a copy of the file of the 2nd respondent which was done. His intent was the three recommended candidates, their application forms and minutes of the interviews. When he was given the file, the 2nd respondent’s file was not there. He told Lolo that he would not be leaving until the said form was presented to him. Lolo went away for about 10 minutes. At the time she went to Ms. Mochela to inform her about the development, that he was not comfortable with the fact that the said document was not in the file. This was the reason why she consulted her before he came to testify.
49. Ms. Mochela was angry with Lolo. After 10 minutes Lolo came back with an application form and gave it to him and Ms. Mochela. He and Ms. Mochela identified a few mistakes in the form:
     The stamp on top was not the correct one.
     The form had two further stamps, the correct one should contain Benoni, director and the code of arms. This is the one that is placed there when applicants submit it. The second one goes to the applicant as proof of submission. However, the one that was there any person could have put it there. The two of them agreed that the stamp was wrong.
     The director had told him in 2024 that the applicant’s application form was ticked ‘no’ on the question whether he had criminal record or not, however the current one is ticked ‘yes’. Further to that, Ms Emily Mochela had confirmed that during shortlisting, it was ticked ‘no criminal’ record.
     Further that Ms. Mochela had informed him that the initial form was handwritten, however this one was typed.
     That the signature was suspicious
     It appears the same, but dating was done by different people.
50. From the above he concluded that the form was created later and not the one submitted earlier. A candidate may submit two applications, but the minutes should reflect that. In this case, this does not appear in the minutes. It appears that Human Resources removed the handwritten one and replaced it with a typed one. Ms. Mochela had confirmed to him that the initial application form was handwritten, and the applicant responded ‘no’ to the question whether he had a criminal record or not.
51. Two weeks before he retired, he and Ms. Mochela dealt with ELRC cases. He called Lolo in the presence of Ms. Mochela and asked him about the current dispute. He said to him” you want me to go to ELRC to defend your wrongs?” He had meant the stamp, the ‘no’ in the said application form. Lolo then broke down and confessed that he had indeed changed the initial form and that he was sorry that he had tempered the application form. He confessed that he created the new typed form. He, the witness, told them that the Director would like them to discipline employees when they do as he did, and that if this was to happen, he would be dismissed. Lolo pleaded with him not to do so. Ms. Mochela also pleaded for him, said that Lolo was still young and that he should not charge him. The witness said that he was very angry at the time.
52. He then told them that the only way he would be exonerated is if he returns the original document. He then directed him to find it and hand it to him at the security gate. Lolo and Ms. Mochela agreed to do so. He later went to the security gate, and the security officer gave him an envelope – see page 12 of bundle A, he later gave it to Mr. Tshangela who took after him when he retired. He, however, found out that it was not the correct form, but another form belonging to the 2nd respondent in his application for a deputy principal post -EN22ED1017, and not the correct post being EM13ED 1005.
53. In so far as co-option is concerned, it cannot happen in this case. See in this regard SASA section 23. In this case it was the principal who was to be appointed and hence an official of the Department would be appointed to represent the HOD and the Director. However, in the other cases, it is possible to co-opt because the principal would be there to represent the HOD and the Director – see Collective Agreement I of 2021.
54. In the case of co-option of Mr. Maebelo, the wrong consists in the fact that it was the principal who was to be appointed. Mr Mphahane was the representative of the HOD and the director. Secondly, co-option is done with the concurrence of the HOD and the Director. In this case it was not done. Thirdly he was not supposed to attend the school governing body meeting but only those of selection and interview panel.
55. With regards to the attachment relating to the declaration of criminal record, such attachment must be brought to the attention of the interview panel before the interview. If not, a candidate cannot be interviewed. (See Collective Agreement 1 of 2021 paragraph 11.10). He disagreed with Ms. Mochela who said it could be submitted after the interview.
56. The chairperson of the school governing body signed off the recommendation on the 12th of September 2024, and Ms. Mochela signed off on the 23rd of September 2024. Ms. Mochela’s supervisor signed off on the 25th of October 2024. The director signed the recommendation on the 29th May 2025, eight months after. The 2nd respondent’s clearance certificate came on the 2nd of May 2025, and the Director signed on the 29th of May 2025, thus as soon as the clearance was issued and submitted. He believed the delay was with HR.
57. At page 16 of bundle A, one Mpho Mohloa asked if the 2nd respondent was cleared or not. The response is positive and at page 18 of bundle A it was Mr. Lawrence Nkanyane who was dealing with the matter.
58. After the interview, the performance, qualifications and experience must be considered. (See Collective Agreement 3 of 2016 paragraph 43).
59. According to him and in the circumstances of this case, a win – win situation would be preferable. This would be the case if the applicant is given a protected promotion.
60. Under cross – examination he confirmed what he testified to in the main.
    SURVEY OF EVIDENCE FOR THE RESPONDENT
    MR MAEBELO MOGOBE JOHANNES TESTIFIED UNDER OATH AS FOLLOWS
61. He knows the applicant. The applicant did practical teaching at his school and met him as a teacher during shortlisting processes. He himself is a member of SADTU and the applicant a NAPTOSA member. He was a member of a panel that interviewed him for the position of principal at Tlamatlama Primary School. The applicant approached him to assist with interviews and that if he agreed he will inform the school governing body to consider co-opting him which was done. He played a role in shortlisting and interviews.
62. He admitted that there was an error in the scoring of the 2nd respondent on qualifications and computer literacy.
63. When he was shown the application forms of the 2nd respondent, he said he did not remember which one was used during the interviews. Further that the minimum experience required was seven years and not eight years.
64. It was not necessary to attach a clearance certificate to the application form. It could be submitted later.
65. After the interview, they considered the scores and deliberated. Qualifications and experience belong to the shortlisting and not interview. He further said that they concentrated on responses and not qualifications and experiences as such.
66. He could not explain why a person who ran a school for twenty-one months needed more support and development than a person who had nothing. He could also not explain what short comings that were there that led the panel to conclude that the applicant needed “more support and development.”
67. When paragraph 43 of Collective Agreement 3 of 2016 which required that qualifications and experience as recorded in the CV must be considered when making an appointment, he said he did not agree.
    ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS
68. In this case the 1st respondent advertised a principalship position for which both the applicant and the 2nd respondent applied. Both were shortlisted and interviewed. The 2nd respondent was appointed. Aggrieved by this, the applicant lodged a dispute with the Council and cited the following as his grievance. I intend to be brief in my findings; the full evidence is on record.

PROCEDURAL DEFECTS

69. The first procedural defect pointed out herein was that the co-option of Mr. Maebelo as a panelist selection and interview panelist was irregular, firstly, because he was not a member of the community, and secondly, that he was unprocedurally co-opted or that the circumstances of the case did not permit him to be co-opted. I reject the suggestion that Mr. Maebelo was not a community member. As a principal of the high school to which Tlamatlama was a feeder, he is a member of the community.
    However, Collective Agreement 1 of 2021 paragraph 9.1.3 (c) provides as follows:
    “No member may be co-opted on the interview committee without the prior approval of the school governing body and/or departmental delegated authority”. In this instance, there is no proof that there was a request by the governing body to the delegated authority for approval of the said appointment. There was therefore an irregularity in his appointment.
70. The second major irregularity cited relates to failure to attach a clearance certificate by the 2nd respondent. It is common cause that such a clearance certificate was not attached to the application but was submitted long after the interview and the recommendation. In other words, the said document did not serve before the interview panel The two parties do not agree as to the correct position. The question is whether the clearance certificate must be attached or may be submitted after the interview or not. The question in the application form is couched as follows:
    “Have you been convicted of a criminal offence? If yes, attach clearance letter.” Collective Agreement 1 of 2021 paragraph 11.10 provides as follows:
    “The information as supplied on the application form will be used for this purpose. It may therefore be possible that some of the required attachment/ certified documents may not be enclosed with a particular application. If a candidate is shortlisted where documents are not attached, then the candidate must be informed to bring the documents to the interview” It is clear from the above that it is a must to attach the documents or submit them at the start of the interview. The purpose of that is to enable the interview panel to consider them. In their absence, a candidate does not have credentials and cannot be interviewed. I therefore conclude that the 2nd respondent having failed to attach or submit the clearance letter on the interview date did not meet the minimum requirements and should not have been interviewed. I conclude that it was irregular for the interview panel to interview him in the absence of a document, the application form instructed that it be attached.
71. The third complaint relates to the scoring of the 2nd respondent. It is common cause that he was over scored in relation to qualifications and computer literacy. However, it is common cause that he was also not scored on minimum experience, and if both are corrected, he would remain in the shortlisting.
72. The fourth complaint related to the assistance the respondent allegedly received from the departmental officials. It is common cause that there was a delay in the finalization of the recruitment process in this matter. The applications were closed on the 12th of December 2023. The interviews were finalized on 12 September 2024 with the chairperson signing off the recommendation. The recommendation was submitted to the district office on the 23rd of September 2024 with Ms Mochela signing off the recommendation. Her supervisor signed off on the 25th of October 2024. The Director signed off the recommendation on the 29th of May 2025, eight months after the document was received by the district office. There was therefore a delay in its finalization. The respondent could not justify the delay.
73. However, what is clear is that after the interview, the first respondent and the 2nd respondent were pre-occupied with the clearance certificate of the 2nd respondent. It is common cause, that as soon as the 2nd respondent submitted the clearance certificate, the process was quickly finalized. Any reasonable decision maker would conclude that the departmental officials were engaged in aiding the 2nd respondent to be appointed regardless of the irregularities. The conduct of Mr. Lawrence Nkanyane as testified to by witness Peter Nkosi leaves much to be desired. There is evidence that he was the one who was enquiring and concerned about the clearance certificate of the 2nd respondent. There is evidence that he confessed to fiddling with the 2nd respondent’s application form to the extent of replacing the handwritten application form with the one that he created on the system. There is also evidence that Peter Nkosi directed him to correct this and had undertaken to do so but, in the end, he conducted himself in a fraudulent manner by submitting to Mr. Peter Nkosi, the 2nd respondent’s old application for position of deputy principal post. It is clear from the evidence that he was saved by the fact that Mr. Nkosi went on retirement and could not do anything further. I conclude that the 1st respondent was engaged in an unfair process that resulted in the appointment of the 2nd respondent to the prejudice of the applicant. The conduct of Mr. Lawrence Nkanyane and Ms. Emily Mochela are so serious that it requires a separate investigation. I say so because if this is the order of the day, innocent, honest and hardworking educators are hard done by them.
74. In conclusion on this matter, I find that the 1st respondent’s conduct through its officials amounted to Unfair Labour Practice. The process was therefore defective.

SUBSTANTIVE FAIRNESS

75. In the main, the applicant’s complaint is that the 1st respondent committed Unfair Labour Practice by not appointing him though he was the best candidate for the post. From the evidence, the applicant has better qualifications and experience than the 2nd respondent. The applicant qualification wise is at REQV 16, whereas the 2nd respondent is at REQV 14. The applicant has a relevant ICT qualification relevant to the current school, whereas the 2nd respondent does not have such qualification. The applicant has 1 year more experience as a deputy principal than the 2nd respondent. The applicant has acted as a principal for twenty-one (21) months at Tlamatlama Primary School immediately prior to the appointment of the 2nd respondent. On the other hand, the 2nd respondent has no such experience. The above is common cause between the parties.
76. What is at issue is the following: Ms. Mochela, Mr. Mphahane and Mr. Maebelo testified that qualifications and experience matter only at shortlisting level. According to them, the interview assessment concentrates on how one answers the questions in the interview only. Mr. Maebelo was very empathetic on this point. However, when he was shown that the Collective Agreement 3 of 2016 paragraph 43 says that “When making appointment, both qualifications and experience as recorded in the curriculum vitae submitted by the candidates together with performance during the interviews, must be taken into account. It is irrational to make an appointment purely based on performance during the interviews or to reason that the experience and qualifications as contained in curriculum vitae become irrelevant after shortlisting. He sought to change his evidence to say they did consider the two factors in respect of the two candidates.
77. When he was shown that the motivation of both candidates showed that the panel at least considered the experience and qualifications of the 2nd respondent but neglected to do so when it came to the applicant, he insisted that the two factors were considered at interview level something that contradicts their earlier evidence. What I can say is that the three witnesses were very unreliable.
78. The motivation for the 2nd respondent was captured as follows:
    “Rihlampfu Magesi Richard was outstanding in his responses to the questions post. He demonstrated reputable knowledge of management leadership and administration. He is successful candidate in relations to score, experience and job knowledge”.
79. The motivation for the applicant was captured as follows:
    “Thobakgale Lazurus Thabiso was very good in his responses to the questions posed. He is appointable as second candidate but will need lot of support and development”.
80. What is clear is that the experience and qualifications of the 2nd respondent were considered but not that of the applicant. What is clear though is that the applicant was superior in both and should have been appointed. The evidence of the witnesses to the fact that these factors are applicable to shortlisting only was clearly intended to sideline the applicant because on those factors he was superior and to use them fairly the 2nd respondent would be eliminated. Consequently, I conclude that the 1st respondent committed unfair labour practice relating to promotion against the applicant.
81. In determining the remedy for the applicant, I will consider the period he has suffered and that it should not be repeated, stability of the school and the injustice that was perpetrated against him.

AWARD

82. I find that the 1st respondent, The department of Education- Gauteng committed an Unfair Labour Practice both procedurally and substantively by not appointing the applicant, Thabiso Lazarus Thobakgale.
83. I hereby set aside the appointment of the 2nd respondent Mr Richard Rihlampfu as the principal of Tlamatlama Primary School.
84. I further order the 1st respondent to appoint the applicant Mr Thabiso Lazarus Thobakgale in the post of Principalship of Tlatlama Primary School with immediate effect.
85. I order the 1st respondent to pay compensation to the applicant in the sum of R441,320,00 (four hundred and forty-one thousand and three hundred and twenty rands) which is equivalent to the applicant’s 10 months’ salary calculated at his rate at the time of the commission of the unfair labour practice. This amount must be paid on or before 30th of July 2026.
86. I further order that this award be submitted to the Head of Department of Education – Gauteng – to consider further investigation into the conduct of Ms. Mochela and Mr. Lawrence Nkanyane.
87. I further order that the record of the proceedings be submitted to the Head of Department of the department of education – Gauteng for the above purposes.

Mmakgare Shai
THE PANELIST