View Categories

08 May 2026 – ELRC910-24/25FS

Panelist: THABO MARUPING
Case No.: ELRC910-24/25FS
Date of Award: 08 May 2026

In the ARBITRATION between:

MOEKETSI AUDREY RAMPAI
(Union / Applicant)

And

FREE STATE: DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

(Respondent)

Applicant’s representative: MR. MOEKETSI A RAMPAI
Applicant’s address:
Telephone
Telefax:
Email

Respondent’s representative: MR. VUYISILE GUBUZA
Respondent’s address: DOE- WELKOM DISTRICT OFFICE
Telephone:
Telefax:
Email:

DETAILS OF HEARING AND REPRESENTATION

  1. The arbitration into the abovementioned alleged unfair dismissal dispute referred to the Education Labour Relations Council (ELRC) in terms of section 191 of Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (the Act).
  2. The matter was set down, 26 January 2026 via online, it was further set down face to face, 26-27 February 2026 and was part heard. The last set down was 23-24 April 2026 and matter was finalised.
  3. The applicant Mr. Moeketsi Rampai represented himself.
  4. The respondent was represented by Mr. V Gubuza, a Labour Relations Officer within the respondent Directorate.
  5. The applicant submitted bundle of documents A, and the respondent submitted bundle R, and respondent elected to use the same bundle of evidence.
  6. Parties submitted oral closing on the last day 24 April 2026.
  7. The hearing was conducted in English, and was digitally recorded.

ISSUES TO BE DECIDED:

  1. I must decide whether the dismissal of the applicant was substantively and procedurally fair.
  2. If it is found to be unfair, a competent remedy will be determined. BACKGROUND
  3. The Applicant was employed as an educator at Mophate Secondary School, in the Bothaville, Free State. He was employed on fixed term contract on, February 2017 and he was converted to permanent, 01 February 2029. He still held a provisional SACE certificate from February 2017, valid until, 10 February 2020.
  4. The applicant’s employment was terminated by the respondent on, 28 February 2025.
  5. The applicants contract of employment was terminated with immediate effect in terms of Chapter 4 section 11(c) of the Employments Educators Act (EEA) 76 of 1998. The applicant failed to submit a permanent South African Council for educators (SACE) certificate as a legal requirement in terms of the South African Council of Educators Act 31 of 2000, chapter 3 (Registration of educators).
    SURVEY OF EVIDENCE
    Respondent’s Case
  6. The Respondent, Mr V. Gubuza, testified under oath that the Employment of Educators Act 76 of 1998 (EEA) operates in conjunction with the South African Council for Educators (SACE) Act.
  7. He stated that the SACE Act regulates the professional and ethical standards applicable to educators, and that all educators must be registered with SACE prior to appointment.
  8. He further emphasized that it is unlawful for any educational institution to appoint an individual as an educator without SACE registration.
  9. The witness explained that between 2010 and 2018, the Department experienced a shortage of scarce skills, particularly in Mathematics and Science education. To address this gap, individuals holding degrees in these fields, but without teaching qualifications, were appointed.
  10. He testified that such individuals were employed on condition that they obtain provisional SACE registration. The Applicant was issued with a three-year provisional SACE certificate, valid from February 2017 to 10 February 2020, to allow time to obtain a formal teaching qualification and qualify for permanent registration.
  11. He confirmed that these educators were prioritised under the Department’s bursary scheme. Over time, the Department succeeded in appointing sufficient qualified educators in Mathematics and Science.
  12. The Respondent maintained that the Applicant was aware of the requirement to obtain a teaching qualification in order to renew or convert his provisional SACE registration. He further noted that between 2023 and 2025, SACE, in partnership with the Department of Education, conducted school visits to monitor compliance.
  13. He reiterated that educators must meet two essential requirements: (1) possession of a recognised teaching qualification, and (2) valid SACE registration.
  14. The Respondent testified that the Applicant received multiple reminders to regularise his status, including a final letter from the District Director dated 4 December 2024, instructing him to submit proof of SACE registration and a teaching qualification by 13 January 2025.
  15. The letter further indicated that failure to comply would result in termination of employment effective 28 February 2025.
  16. The Respondent argued that the Applicant had been employed for eight years and had ample opportunity to obtain the required qualification, yet remained non-compliant from February 2020 until his termination in February 2025.
  17. He further testified that, to date, the Applicant has not met either requirement. The termination was effected in terms of Chapter 4, Section 11(1)(c) of the Employment of Educators Act 76 of 1998.
  18. Under cross-examination, the witness stated that an employment letter was not required for SACE registration, as the Applicant had been permanently appointed and could rely on existing documentation.
  19. He maintained that it was the Applicant’s responsibility to obtain the teaching qualification and register with SACE, while the Respondent’s role was limited to providing support. He further noted that the Applicant failed to produce sufficient evidence demonstrating progress towards compliance.
  20. He concluded that the Applicant had more than seven years to meet the requirements but failed to do so.

Applicant’s Case

  1. The Applicant, Mr Moeketsi Rampai, testified under oath that he was not provided with an appointment letter necessary for SACE registration.
  2. He further testified that, as a member of the School Governing Body (SGB), he raised concerns regarding financial mismanagement at the school, after which he began experiencing difficulties with the Respondent. He alleged that he was subsequently accused of sexual harassment and suspended in 2021, claiming that the allegations were instigated by the principal.
  3. He stated that his suspension was lifted on 4 April 2022, and that he lodged grievances alleging victimisation.
  4. The Applicant testified that he suffered from depression, which resulted in periods of sick leave.
  5. He submitted that he initially enrolled for a Postgraduate Certificate in Education (PGCE) but discontinued his studies due to personal and family-related challenges.
  6. He later enrolled for a Bachelor of Education degree with UNISA in 2019 and completed five modules in his first year.
  7. He further stated that he applied for a bursary in 2021 to study in 2022, but received the approval late, after university registration had closed, preventing him from enrolling. He indicated that he was similarly unable to study in 2024, but eventually registered again in 2025.
  8. He testified that he applied for SACE registration on 2 June 2025 but encountered delays due to an expired police clearance, which he renewed on 3 June 2025.
  9. Under cross-examination, the Applicant conceded that an employment letter is not a prerequisite for SACE registration and acknowledged that he did not possess a teaching qualification or permanent SACE registration. He confirmed that his provisional certificate expired in February 2020 and that he had been employed for over seven years.
  10. In response to a clarification question, he confirmed that completion of the one-year PGCE would have enabled him to meet the SACE requirements.

ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS

  1. In terms of Section 138(7) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995, this award is issued with brief reasons.
  2. Section 185 of the LRA provides that every employee has the right not to be unfairly dismissed. In determining fairness, I am guided by the principles set out in Sidumo and Another v Rustenburg Platinum Mines Ltd and Others, where the Constitutional Court held that a dismissal must be both substantively and procedurally fair, and that the commissioner must determine whether the decision to dismiss was fair in all the circumstances.
  3. The Applicant’s dismissal was effected in terms of Section 11(1)(c) of the Employment of Educators Act 76 of 1998, which permits dismissal where it promotes efficiency or serves the interests of the State.
  4. It is common cause that the Applicant did not possess a teaching qualification or permanent registration with the South African Council for Educators at the time of dismissal.
  5. The importance of meeting inherent job requirements has been emphasised in Department of Home Affairs v Ndlovu and Others, where the Labour Court held that failure to meet statutory or inherent requirements of a position may justify dismissal.
  6. Similarly, in IMATU obo Strydom v Witzenberg Municipality and Others, the Court confirmed that non-compliance with essential qualifications or statutory requirements renders continued employment untenable.
  7. The evidence demonstrates that the Applicant was afforded a reasonable period, exceeding seven years, to obtain the necessary teaching qualification and SACE registration.
  8. In Toyota SA Motors (Pty) Ltd v Radebe and Others, the Labour Appeal Court held that an employee is expected to meet the inherent requirements of the job, and failure to do so over a prolonged period may justify dismissal.
  9. While the Applicant raised allegations of victimisation and personal challenges, these do not detract from the central issue of non-compliance. In Kievits Kroon Country Estate (Pty) Ltd v Mmoledi and Others, the Court held that personal circumstances may be considered, but do not excuse failure to meet fundamental job requirements indefinitely.
  10. The Applicant conceded that completion of a one-year PGCE would have enabled compliance. His failure to do so over an extended period remains unexplained.
  11. Regarding the Applicant’s allegation that the dismissal was linked to whistleblowing or misconduct disputes, no evidence was presented establishing a causal nexus. In NUM and Another v CCMA and Others, the Court held that allegations of ulterior motive must be supported by credible evidence.
  12. I am satisfied that the Respondent has demonstrated a valid and fair reason for dismissal based on operational efficiency and statutory compliance.
  13. Applying the test in Sidumo and Another v Rustenburg Platinum Mines Ltd and Others, I find that dismissal was an appropriate sanction in the circumstances.
  14. The dismissal was both substantively and procedurally fair.

AWARD

  1. The dismissal of the Applicant, Mr Moeketsi Rampai, was substantively and procedurally fair.
  2. The Applicant’s claim is dismissed.

Thabo Maruping
ELRC Arbitrator