Panellist: Asnath Sedibane
Case No: ELRC47-26/27MP
Date of Award: 10 July 2026

In the ARBITRATION between:

Makhubela, Lunga
(Union / Applicant)
and

Department of Higher Education and Training
(Respondent)

Union/Applicant’s representative: Self-Represented
Union/Applicant’s address:
1st Respondent’s representative: Mr Charles Mamphogoro
1st Respondent’s address:

DETAILS OF HEARING AND REPRESENTATION

1. The arbitration hearing between Lunga David Makhubela (the Applicant) and Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) (the Respondent) was held under the auspices of the Education Labour Relations Council (“ELRC”), on 26 June 2026, virtually, via Microsoft Teams. The matter was set down for arbitration in terms of section 186(2) (a) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1996 (“LRA’’).
2. The Applicant attended the arbitration hearing and represented himself in the proceedings. The Respondent was represented by Mr Charles Mamphogoro, an official of the Department of Higher Education and Training. Mr Godfrey Ubisi, an ELRC Interpreter also attended the arbitration process.
3. The parties submitted bundles of documents, which included pre-arbitration minutes which were read into the record.
4. At the conclusion of the leading of oral evidence, it was agreed between the parties and the Panellist, that the parties would submit closing arguments in writing, by no later than the 3rd of July 2026. I have received the closing arguments from the parties, and I have taken them into consideration when making this award.

ISSUES TO BE DECIDED

5. I was required to determine whether the Respondent committed an unfair labour practice relating to demotion against the Applicant.
6. The relief sought by the Applicant if I find in his favour is compensation and solatium for the unfair labour practice.
7. After the narrowing of issues, it was agreed that the following issues were common cause between the parties:
   7.1 The Applicant was appointed by Respondent as a PL1 Lecturer in May 2015.
   7.2 The Applicant’s current annual gross salary is R307 335-00.
   7.3 The current gross salary of the post of Student Support Officer is R325 101-00.
   7.4 The Applicant was transferred to the position of Student Support Officer on 24 November 2023.
8. The parties agreed that the following were the issues in dispute:
   8.1 Whether the transfer of the Applicant in 2023 was null and void.
   8.2 Whether the transfer of the Applicant back to his position as a Lecturer in January 2026 constitutes a demotion.

BACKGROUND TO THE DISPUTE

9. The Applicant, Mr Lunga David Makhubela was employed by the Respondent, the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) as a Lecturer at Nkangala TVET College, Middelburg Campus with effect from May 2015. In November 2023, the Applicant was transferred to the position of Student Support Officer, and he performed the duties of the position from January 2024. In November 2025, the Applicant was advised by the Respondent that he would resume his duties as a Lecturer with effect from January 2026. The Applicant declared an unfair labour practice dispute relating to benefits with the CCMA, and following the conciliation at the CCMA, the Applicant lodged a dispute for unfair labour practice relating to demotion with the ELRC.

SURVEY OF SUBMISSIONS AND ARGUMENTS
THE APPLICANT`S CASE
The Applicant, Mr Lunga David Makhubela’s testimony in brief was as follows:

10. He was called by the Campus Manager, Mr Phalane to his office in November 2023. Mr Phalane and the Senior Business Specialist told him that they have seen his potential and there was a position of a Student Support Officer available for him. They asked him to submit his CV and to sign a transfer form. He was provided with the register, showing that he was the only one who had made a submission for the position. He was transferred to the position, and he executed the duties of the position excellently. The only reason he did not raise an issue with the remuneration in the position was because he had hoped that the transfer would be finalised and he would be remunerated at the correct level. In November 2025 he was called by the Campus Manager and instructed to go back to class.
11. He lodged a grievance and HR came to the college. Ms Green-Thomson had been called first into the meeting with HR. No agenda had been provided for the meeting, and he was not afforded the opportunity to say anything. When he inquired about the remuneration for the years that he had executed the duties in the position of Student Support Officer, he was told that there would not be any remuneration and that he had signed the transfer document. The grievance process was not concluded. He had referred a dispute to the CCMA where a jurisdictional ruling was issued, and the matter was referred to the ELRC. Technically he is still in the post of Student Support Officer as he was not provided with a transfer form, for him to be transferred back to the PL1 position.
12. Under cross-examination, Mr Makhubela did not dispute that the transfer form he had filled in 2023 was not complete as it had not been approved by the accounting officer. It was put to him that the transfer was null and void. He confirmed that he had to put the salary of R256 554-00 for both positions, the one he was transferring from, and the one was transferring to. He reiterated that he had hoped that HR would correct the salary once the transfer was completed. He disputed that if he had been placed on Salary Level 7 it would have been tantamount to a promotion. He disputed that that there was a consultation with him when he was transferred back to his Lecturer position. He maintained that he was instructed to go back to his position. He disputed that his original dispute was only for payment of the benefits and not about demotion. He disputed that he had not raised the issue of remuneration in 24 months because he knew that that the transfer was without a financial benefit. THE RESPONDENT`S CASE
    The Respondent’s first witness, Mr Madimabe Tebello Phalane’s brief testimony was as follows:
13. He is the Campus Manager of the Middleburg Campus of Nkangala TVET College. The Applicant is a Lecturer at the College. Ms Green-Thomson who was also appointed as Lecturer but was working as a Student Liaison Officer in 2023 agreed to go back to lecturing as the relationship between her and her then line manager was not good. HR was engaged and they said the College could do the transfer process internally and they would provide the paperwork . The transfer was to be a horizontal cross-transfer, with no salary increases. The Applicant was the only one who showed interest in the post of Student Support Officer. The cross-transfer was done and none of the two employees raised any issues with the salary. The only change was that the Applicant would no longer follow the student recess calendar but would take leave. The adverse applied to Ms Green-Thomson.
14. The transfer was implemented in January 2024 and in March 2024, HR advised that the Applicant did not meet the requirements of the position as the position required an RQV 14 qualification whereas the Applicant had an RQV 13 qualification. He knew that Mr Makhubela was studying and had hoped that he would have the RQV 14 by the end of the year. He was later advised that the Applicant was studying towards a law degree and that it was not relevant for the position. In May 2025 he was advised that Ms Green-Thomson was translated from Lecturer to Student Liaison Officer. He was once again told that it would not be possible to translate the Applicant to the position permanently as he did not meet the requirements. In November 2025 the two employees were advised that they would have to swop positions again. The Applicant was disappointed and he was advised by HR to lodge a grievance.
15. The initial transfer had been done in good faith and there would not have been any financial benefits as this would have resulted in a promotion. The transfer could not be finalised, and it was not approved by the Principal. The Applicant had been engaged throughout the process.
16. Under cross-examination, Mr Phalane did not dispute that a skills audit had not been done at the College. He however disputed that the Applicant had been demoted. He said that the Applicant had attended various programmes to empower him. A transfer form was not required for the Applicant to resume his PL1 position as the initial transfer was rejected by the system. He confirmed that the Applicant had not been provided with an agenda for the meeting in November 2025 and he had not been notified of his right to representation.
    The Respondent’s second witness, Ms Zandile Sibiya’s brief testimony was as follows:
17. She is an Assistant Director: HR Management and Development. HR had been contacted by the College in November 2023 about two officials swopping positions. Transfer forms were sent to the College for the two employees to fill in. In order for the cross-transfer to be possible, the two had to be on the same level to avoid a promotion. The two had started in their new positions in January 2024 and in March 2024 when HR wanted to effect the transfer on the system, and it was discovered that the Applicant had RQV 13 qualifications whereas the position of Student Liaison Officer required RQV 14 qualifications. The transfer could therefore not be effected. In May 2025, the transfer of Ms Green-Thomson from PL1 to PL7 was finalised on the system. This was communicated to the College. It was also discovered that the qualification the Applicant was studying towards was not relevant for the position. The transfer forms were never approved by the delegated authority and were therefore invalid. The Applicant was never demoted.
18. Under cross-examination, Ms Sibiya confirmed that a skills audit had not been done at the College. She said that the Applicant had attended several trainings. The Applicant had been consulted regarding him going back to his position. There was no need for the Applicant to fill in a transfer form to go back to his position as he was never transferred from the position on the system. She could not have remembered what the Applicant was studying as HR handles matters of a lot of staff members.
    Closing arguments by the Applicant
19. In closing, the Applicant submitted that he was approached by the Respondent to take up the position of Student Support Officer. He was in the role for 24 months and not once did the Respondent raise an issue about his qualifications. When the Respondent decided to remove him from the position, it was done so unilaterally, without affording him the position to be heard. The transfer had been done through documents which now the Respondent claims to be void. The demotion has caused him distress and humiliation. In fairness, the Commissioner must find that he was unfairly demoted and that he should be compensated for such unfair demotion.
20. In closing, the Respondent submitted that it had led evidence to show that the Applicant’s transfer back to PL1-Lecturing duties did not constitute a demotion. The Applicant consented to the horizontal transfer to Student Support Officer, with full knowledge that he would retain his PL1 notch. The transfer was not finalised as it had not been authorised by the Accounting Officer/ Principal. The Applicant’s core grievance was that he be remunerated for performing duties of a higher position. The demotion dispute was an afterthought as the Applicant knew that if he were to pursue the benefits claim, he would have to apply for condonation since he became aware of the alleged omission of the payment of benefits in March 2024. The Respondent has discharged the onus of disproving the demotion claim on a balance of probabilities. The Respondent prays that the dispute be dismissed.

ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS

21. I have considered all relevant evidence and arguments raised by the parties and in doing so, I have only referred to evidence and arguments that I regard necessary to substantiate my findings and dispose of the dispute.
22. The Applicant has declared a dispute relating to demotion, in terms of section 186(2) (a) of the
    Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995, which provides as follows: 186 Meaning of dismissal and unfair labour practice (2) ‘Unfair labour practice’ means any unfair act or omission that arises between an employer and an
    employee involving-
    (a) unfair conduct by the employer relating to the promotion, demotion, probation (excluding disputes about dismissals for a reason relating to probation) or training of an employee or relating to the provision of benefits to an employee;
23. The Applicant testified as the only witness in his case and stated that he was asked by the Respondent to transfer from his PL1 Lecturer position to the position of Student Support Officer, which is on Salary Level 7. He duly filled in the transfer form that was provided and the transfer came into effect in January 2024. He has served in the position for a period of 24 months and was instructed to go back to his position of PL1 Lecturer, in December 2025. He was unfairly treated by the Respondent in that he was demoted from the position he had occupied for 24 months and for which he was not compensated. He seeks compensation for the demotion.
24. According to the Applicant, he had not raised the issue of remuneration at the correct level (PL7) earlier as he had hoped that the transfer would be finalised and the issue of remuneration would be corrected. He had upon been instructed to resume his lecturing duties, declared a dispute with the CCMA and the dispute was subsequently referred to the ELRC for adjudication.
25. The Respondent’s evidence through Mr Phalane and Ms Sibiya was that the Applicant’s transfer from PL1 Lecturer to PL7 Student Support Officer in January 2024 was void ab initio as it had not been approved by the accounting officer and was further not implemented on the Respondent’s systems. Both witnesses testified that the Applicant had accepted a horizontal transfer, without a change in salary and that the Respondent had in good faith intended that such transfer be formalised once authorised. It was further the evidence of the witnesses that it was later discovered that the Applicant did not possess an RQV 14 qualification that was required for the position and as a result his transfer could not be finalised. The Respondent submitted that the Applicant was not demoted as he was never promoted.
26. Demotion means a reduction or diminution in one’s dignity, importance, responsibility, power or status. The Labour Court in SAPS v Salukazana and others (P 284/09) [2010] ZALC 25 found that a demotion and a transfer have common attributes-there is a movement in both a demotion and a transfer. The court further found that if the movement leads to a reduction in status, it is demotion.
27. It is common cause that the purported transfer of the Applicant in 2024 was, with the consent of the Applicant, without financial implications. It is further common cause that Ms Green-Thomson with whom the Applicant swopped positions in January 2024, was also appointed and remunerated as a PL1 Lecturer at the time of the purported transfer. Ms Green-Thomson had been performing the duties of a Student Support Officer but was not yet translated into the position at the time she swoped positions with the Applicant.
28. The Applicant did not dispute that without the approval of the accounting officer, the transfer was in essence void. He could further not dispute that he did not possess the required RQV 14 qualifications, for him to be appointed in the position of Student Support Officer. The Labour Court in Kenoshi v Matshaka NO and others (JR 531/2019) [2022] ZALACJHB 233, considered the issue of demotion where an employee (Ms Kenoshi) had been erroneously promoted when she did not meet the requirements of the post, and her rank was then reduced and the Commissioner had found that that did not constitute a demotion. The Court confirmed that a correction in placement did not amount to demotion.
29. Without a valid transfer, there could not have been a demotion. It is unfortunate that the Applicant had indeed performed the duties of the higher position for a period of 24 months, without being remunerated at the salary notch of that position and without the approval of the accounting officer, which would have formalised the transfer. The Applicant was well aware at the time of accepting the transfer that it would be without renumeration at the higher salary level, and he accepted the condition.
30. The Applicant’s claim that he was demoted lacks merit as all evidence points to the fact that the Applicant’s initial transfer, which was void due to not having been approved, could not have constituted a promotion. It stands to reason that the subsequent transfer of the Applicant back to his position of PL1 Lecturer in January 2026, cannot constitute a demotion.
31. The Applicant failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the Respondent demoted him and that it therefore committed unfair labour practice against him. The Applicant’s claim stands to be dismissed.

Award

32. The Applicant, Lunga Makhubela has failed to prove on a balance of probabilities, that the Respondent, Department of Higher Education and Training has committed unfair labour practice relating to demotion against him.
33. The Applicant’s application is dismissed, and the Applicant is not entitled to any relief.

Asnath Sedibane
EL

Asnath Sedibane
ELRC Dispute Resolution Panellist