10 June 2026 – ELRC1388-25/26GP

IN THE ELRC ARBITRATION
BETWEEN:

Themba Raymond Nkosi Applicant
and
The Department of Education: Gauteng Province Respondent

ARBITRATION AWARD

CASE NUMBER: ELRC1388-25/26GP

ARBITRATION DATE: 14 May 2026
DATE OF AWARD: 10 June 2026

Pitsi Maitsha
ELRC Arbitrator

Education Labour Relations Council
ELRC Building
261 West Avenue
Centurion
Tel: 012 663 0452
Fax: 012 643 1601
E-mail: gen.sec@elrc.co.za
Website: www.elrc.org.za
DETAILS OF HEARING AND REPRESENTATION

On 14 May 2026, an arbitration hearing was conducted virtually via Microsoft Teams under the auspices of the ELRC in terms of section 191(5)(a)(iv) of the Labour Relations Act, 66 of 1995, as amended (“the LRA”). This award is issued in terms of section 138(7) of the LRA.
The applicant is Mr. Themba Raymond Nkosi, who represented himself during the proceedings. The respondent is the Gauteng Department of Education, represented by Mr. Themba Tshanglela, Labour Relations Officer.
Both parties gave evidence under oath. The proceedings were digitally recorded.

ISSUE TO BE DECIDED

The issue to be determined is whether the applicant was entitled to receive:
o a salary adjustment of 1.5%; and/or
o pay progression.
Should it be found that the applicant was entitled to either of the above benefits, I am required to determine the appropriate relief.

BACKGROUND DETAILS

The respondent operates in the basic education sector. The applicant, Mr Themba Raymond Nkosi, has been employed by the respondent since 1 April 2001. He is currently employed as the Principal of Laerskool Kreft Primary School, having been appointed to the position of Principal with effect from 1 April 2021.
During the 2022/2023 performance cycle, the applicant was assessed in terms of the Quality Management System (QMS). Following the assessment process, he obtained a composite score of 54.19. The assessment was conducted on 14 October 2025, and the outcome thereof was submitted to the District Director: Performance Management and Development System (PMDS) Unit on 3 November 2025.
Despite the applicant having been assessed under the QMS, the respondent did not grant him the 1.5% pay progression adjustment. The applicant contends that, based on his assessment outcome, he qualified for the adjustment.
In a letter dated 5 November 2025, signed by Mr. M.S. Makola, the respondent communicated the reasons for the non-payment. The letter, headed “Arbitration Award for the Case of Mr. Nkosi TR (Persal No. 18655459) v Gauteng Department of Education, Case No. ELRC698-24/25GP – Outcome: Non-payment of 1.5% QMS Pay Progression 2022/2023”, recorded that, according to the applicant’s Persal service records, he did not qualify for the 1.5% pay progression due to his promotion to the position of Principal with effect from 1 April 2021. The respondent’s position was that, upon transitioning to a new post under a different performance management framework, the applicant was required to complete a full twelve-month cycle in the new position before becoming eligible for QMS pay progression.
The respondent relied on, amongst others, the following documents in support of its position:
o The arbitration award.
o Annexure D3: QMS Composite Score Sheet;
o Minutes of the assessment meeting; and
o The applicant’s Persal records.
At the relevant time, the applicant’s salary notch was recorded as R597 150.00 per annum.
The parties agreed that the issue for determination was whether the respondent’s decision not to grant the applicant the 1.5% pay progression adjustment was fair.
Aggrieved by the respondent’s failure to award and pay the 1.5% pay progression adjustment, the applicant referred an unfair labour practice dispute relating to benefits to the ELRC. He seeks an order directing the respondent to pay the adjustment, whilst the respondent seeks the dismissal of the claim.
THE APPLICANT’S EVIDENCE
The applicant testified that he received communication from the respondent on 22 January 2026 informing him that he did not qualify for the QMS pay progression because he had been promoted to the position of Principal on 1 April 2021.
He testified that the respondent’s explanation was contained in a document headed “Implementation of Arbitration Award”. According to the document, despite having achieved a QMS score of 54.19, he did not qualify for the 1.5% pay progression due to his promotion. The applicant disputed the respondent’s reasoning and submitted that his dispute relates to the 2022/2023 performance cycle and not to the date of his promotion.
The applicant testified that he was assessed by his supervisor, Ms Bonga, for the period 1 January 2022 to 31 December 2022. He submitted that the respondent incorrectly relied on his appointment date and failed to consider that the performance cycle under review was the 2022/2023 cycle.
He further testified that he was not promoted during 2022 or 2023. His promotion to the position of Principal took effect on 1 April 2021. He submitted that he qualified to be considered for pay progression in the subsequent performance cycle and that the adjustment should have been implemented on 1 July 2023. He further testified that his annual salary increased to R636 537.00 with effect from 1 April 2023, but the 1.5% pay progression adjustment was not granted.
The applicant testified that the respondent incorrectly applied provisions applicable to office-based educators instead of those applicable to school-based educators. He referred to Collective Agreement 2 of 2020 and testified that the performance cycle for school-based educators runs from January to December, with a mid-year appraisal conducted in June and a final appraisal conducted at the end of the year.
According to the applicant, he is a school-based educator and not an office-based educator. He therefore contended that the respondent relied on the incorrect performance management framework when determining his eligibility for pay progression.
The applicant testified that principals are assessed in terms of the QMS appraisal instrument applicable to School Management Team members at post level 4. He referred to Annexure D2, which requires the completion of educator and school information and provides for mid-year and annual appraisals.
He further referred to the minutes of his assessment meeting, which recorded that a mid-year and annual assessment meeting was held on 14 October 2025 at the Ekurhuleni North District offices. The minutes reflected that copies of the job description and work plan were presented and moderated, and that both the applicant and Ms Bonga agreed with the assessment outcome. Both parties signed the assessment documentation.
The applicant testified that the respondent erroneously applied criteria applicable to office-based educators when assessing his eligibility for pay progression. He referred to the QMS Frequently Asked Questions document, which states that school-based educators occupying post levels 2 to 4 qualify for pay progression if they:
• complete a work plan;
• participate in both the mid-year and annual appraisal processes; and
• obtain a minimum performance score of 50%.
The applicant testified that he complied with all these requirements, having achieved a score of 54.19.
He further referred to provisions dealing with factors to be considered for pay progression, including date of appointment in the current post, first-time participation in the system, years of continuous service, and compliance with Collective Agreement 2 of 2020. He referred specifically to clause 4.3 of PSCBC Resolution 1 of 2012, which provides that after completion of 24 months, an eligible first-time participant qualifies for annual pay progression.
The applicant testified that the respondent misunderstood the concept of a “first-time participant”. According to him, the provision applies to employees entering the system for the first time and not to employees who have merely been promoted within the Department.
The applicant further relied on provisions dealing with School Management Team members appointed during a performance cycle. He referred to paragraph 9 of the QMS guidelines, which provides that an educator appointed to an SMT post during the year is subject to the applicable QMS appraisal processes from the date of appointment. If appointed before the mid-year appraisal, the educator is appraised on work performed up to the mid-year review. If appointed after the mid-year appraisal, the educator is subject to the annual appraisal only. Such educators are required to complete a work plan within 30 days of assuming duty.
He testified that these provisions demonstrate that newly appointed SMT members may still be appraised during the relevant performance cycle and that there is no provision preventing them from qualifying for pay progression merely because they were appointed or promoted during the cycle.
The applicant also referred to provisions dealing with circumstances in which educators may not be appraised due to factors beyond their control. He testified that Collective Agreement 2 of 2020 contains no default clause excluding educators from pay progression where valid reasons exist for non-appraisal. The agreement recognizes circumstances such as approved leave, school mergers, school closures, precautionary transfers, excess educator declarations, and precautionary suspensions.
He submitted that he complied with all appraisal requirements and that none of the recognized exclusions applied to him.
The applicant testified that he suffered prejudice as a result of the respondent’s refusal to grant him the 1.5% pay progression adjustment despite his compliance with the applicable QMS requirements.
During cross-examination, the applicant conceded that clause 4.3 of PSCBC Resolution 1 of 2012 refers to completion of 24 months before a first-time participant qualifies for annual pay progression. He further conceded that he had not completed 24 months in the position of Principal by January 2022. He nevertheless maintained that he was not a first-time participant in the education system and that the provision did not apply to his circumstances. He testified that, although the position of Principal was new to him, he remained an employee of the Department and was required to sign his QMS documentation and work plan at the commencement of the performance cycle in order to be assessed.

THE APPLICANT’S CLOSING ARGUMENTS

The applicant submitted that he had completed a full twelve-month period in the position of Principal between 1 April 2022 and 31 March 2023 and therefore met the requirement relied upon by the respondent for qualification for QMS pay progression.
He argued that the respondent incorrectly applied the QMS requirements by linking his eligibility for pay progression to his appointment as Principal. According to the applicant, the relevant assessment period was from 1 January 2022 to 31 December 2022 and not the 2021 QMS cycle.
The applicant further submitted that the respondent’s witness, Ms Betty, relied on clause 4.3 of PSCBC Resolution 1 of 2012 in support of the contention that he had not yet qualified for pay progression. He argued that her interpretation effectively introduced a probationary requirement that did not apply to principals and was inconsistent with other documents submitted by the respondent.
The applicant contended that he had complied with all the requirements for QMS pay progression, including the completion of the prescribed appraisal processes and the attainment of a qualifying performance score.
He accordingly requested that the Council find in his favour and order the respondent to grant and pay the 1.5% pay progression adjustment for the 2022/2023 performance cycle. He further submitted that he had suffered ongoing prejudice as a result of the non-payment of the adjustment from 1 July 2023 to date and sought appropriate relief in terms of the Labour Relations Act.

THE RESPONDENT’S EVIDENCE
Evidence of Ms Betty Makgale: Senior Personnel Practitioner, Directorate: Labour Relations

Ms Betty Makgale testified on behalf of the respondent. She stated that the arbitration award had been implemented insofar as the applicant had been assessed in terms of the applicable QMS processes.
She testified that the applicant’s performance score was not the sole determinant of eligibility for pay progression. According to her, the respondent considers a number of factors, including the employee’s Persal records, date of appointment, post level, and salary notch history.
Ms Makgale testified that the applicant was appointed to the position of Principal (Post Level 4) with effect from 1 April 2021. She described this appointment as a promotion and testified that it constituted a determining factor when assessing his eligibility for pay progression.
She explained that the respondent examines the employee’s Persal records to establish the date of appointment to the relevant post. In the applicant’s case, his appointment occurred during the QMS performance cycle, which runs from January to December each year for school-based educators.
Ms Makgale further testified that, in addition to the performance score, the employee’s salary notch must remain unchanged for the qualifying period. According to her, the official must remain on the same post level and salary notch throughout the relevant period in order to qualify for pay progression.
She stated that although the QMS cycle runs from January to December, pay progression is implemented on 1 July of the following year. She testified that, in practice, this means that the employee must remain on the same post level and notch for the entire qualifying period before becoming eligible for pay progression.
Ms Makgale testified that the applicant’s claim related to the 2022/2023 pay progression cycle. According to the respondent, he did not qualify because he had not yet satisfied the qualifying period applicable to an employee who had recently been appointed to a new post.
In support of the respondent’s position, she referred to clause 4 of PSCBC Resolution 1 of 2012, which regulates pay progression. She testified that clause 4.2 extends the qualifying period for first-time participants from 12 months to 24 months.
She further referred to clause 4.3, which provides that upon completion of the 24 months, an eligible first-time participant qualifies for annual pay progression.
Ms Makgale testified that the applicant was regarded as a first-time participant in the principal post and that he had not completed the requisite qualifying period for purposes of pay progression during the 2022/2023 cycle. According to her, because he was appointed on 1 April 2021, he entered the QMS cycle partway through the year and had not yet met the qualifying requirements for that cycle.
She further testified that the applicant had not completed what she described as the applicable probationary or qualifying period in the new post and therefore did not qualify for pay progression during the period in dispute.
Ms Makgale denied that the respondent had committed an unfair labour practice. She testified that the respondent’s decision was based on the applicable policies and Persal records. According to her, before he was appointed Principal, the applicant occupied the position of Senior Education Specialist at Post Level 3.
She further testified that Principals at Post Level 4 are required to complete a work plan and participate in the QMS appraisal cycle. The cycle includes a mid-year assessment, generally conducted in June, and a final assessment conducted towards the end of the year.
Under cross-examination, Ms Makgale confirmed that the QMS cycle for school-based educators commences in January each year.
She further testified that the respondent applies the Personnel Administrative Measures (PAM) and other applicable collective agreements when determining eligibility for pay progression.
Ms Makgale confirmed that a minimum performance score of 50% is required for consideration for pay progression.
She also testified that, in order to qualify for pay progression, an educator is required to complete the prescribed performance management processes, including the signing of a work plan, participation in the mid-year and annual assessments, submission of a composite score, and the moderation process.
Finally, she testified that continuous service, for purposes of the respondent’s interpretation of the applicable provisions, is linked to the completion of the 24-month qualifying period contemplated in PSCBC Resolution 1 of 2012.

THE RESPONDENT’S CLOSING ARGUMENTS

Mr. Themba Tshangela, on behalf of the respondent, submitted that the applicant’s promotion from Senior Education Specialist (Post Level 3) to Principal (Post Level 4) was the determining factor in the respondent’s decision not to grant him the 1.5% pay progression for the QMS cycle under consideration.
He argued that the applicant’s appointment letter reflected that he was appointed permanently to the position of Principal with effect from 1 April 2021, subject to a twelve-month probationary period. According to the respondent, this appointment occurred during the middle of the applicable QMS cycle.
Mr. Tshangela submitted that the applicant was a first-time participant in the principal post and, as such, was required to complete the prescribed qualifying period before becoming eligible for pay progression.
He argued that, upon assuming the position of Principal, the applicant entered a new performance management framework applicable to that post and was therefore required to complete the probationary and qualifying requirements associated with the position before qualifying for annual pay progression.
The respondent maintained that the applicant had not satisfied the requirements for pay progression during the period in dispute and that the decision not to grant the 1.5% adjustment was consistent with the applicable collective agreements, policies, and Persal records.
Mr. Tshangela further submitted that the applicant had failed to discharge the onus of proving an unfair labour practice relating to benefits as contemplated in section 186(2)(a) of the Labour Relations Act, 66 of 1995.
Accordingly, the respondent requested that the applicant’s claim be dismissed and that no relief be granted.

ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT

This dispute concerns an alleged unfair labour practice relating to benefits, specifically the respondent’s refusal to grant the applicant a 1.5% pay progression adjustment. The applicant bears the onus of establishing, on a balance of probabilities, that he was entitled to the benefit claimed and that the respondent acted unfairly in denying it. Once a prima facie case has been established, the respondent bears the evidentiary burden of justifying its decision.
The applicant testified in support of his case and submitted documentary evidence contained in Bundle A. The respondent called one witness, Ms Betty Makgale, and relied on the documents contained in Bundle R. Both parties submitted written closing arguments.
The dispute arose from the respondent’s communication dated 5 November 2025 in which the applicant was informed that he did not qualify for the 1.5% pay progression because of his promotion to the position of Principal with effect from 1 April 2021.
Certain facts are common cause. The applicant was appointed as Principal on 1 April 2021. He was assessed in terms of the Quality Management System (QMS) for the period January 2022 to December 2022. He obtained a composite score of 54.19%. It is further common cause that a score of at least 50% constitutes the minimum performance threshold for consideration for pay progression.
The central question for determination is whether the respondent had a fair and justifiable basis for refusing to grant the applicant the 1.5% pay progression adjustment.
The applicant’s case is founded primarily on Collective Agreement 2 of 2020 and the QMS framework applicable to school-based educators. He contends that he complied with all the requirements prescribed for pay progression, namely the completion of a work plan, participation in the appraisal process, and the attainment of a qualifying performance score.
The respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the applicant did not qualify because he was a first-time participant in the position of Principal and had not completed the qualifying period contemplated in clauses 4.2 and 4.3 of PSCBC Resolution 1 of 2012. The respondent further relied on the applicant’s Persal records, his appointment date, and what it described as a probationary or qualifying period applicable to newly appointed Principals.
Having considered the evidence, I am unable to agree with the respondent’s interpretation of PSCBC Resolution 1 of 2012. The evidence established that the applicant had been employed by the respondent continuously since 1 April 2001. Although he was promoted to the position of Principal on 1 April 2021, he was not a new entrant into the public service nor a first-time participant in the employer’s performance management system in the ordinary sense contemplated by the Resolution.
The respondent’s witness equated promotion to a new post with first-time participation for purposes of pay progression. However, no persuasive evidence was presented demonstrating that an employee who has rendered continuous service for many years automatically becomes a first-time participant merely because he or she has been promoted to a higher post level.
Furthermore, the respondent’s reliance on a probationary period is unconvincing. Even if the applicant’s appointment as Principal was subject to a twelve-month probation period, such probation would have expired by 31 March 2022. The pay progression cycle in dispute relates to the period January 2022 to December 2022 and payment due on 1 July 2023. By that stage, the applicant had long completed any probationary period associated with his appointment as Principal.
I further accept the applicant’s uncontested evidence that the QMS framework applicable to school-based educators requires that educators appointed during a performance cycle be assessed on the work performed in the relevant period. The evidence demonstrates that the applicant submitted the required work plan, participated in the appraisal process, and was assessed in accordance with the QMS requirements.
Significantly, the respondent did not dispute that the applicant complied with the procedural requirements of the QMS process. Nor did it dispute that he obtained a qualifying score exceeding the prescribed minimum threshold.
The respondent’s principal justification for denying pay progression was the applicant’s appointment date and the information reflected on the Persal system. However, little evidence was presented explaining why the Persal records, in themselves, disqualified the applicant from receiving pay progression despite his compliance with the substantive QMS requirements.
While I accept that a performance score alone does not automatically entitle an educator to pay progression, the respondent was required to demonstrate that the additional factors upon which it relied constituted a valid basis for disqualification under the applicable collective agreements and policies. In my view, it failed to do so.
The evidence establishes that the applicant had rendered continuous service to the respondent for more than two decades, had occupied the position of Principal for the entirety of the 2022 performance cycle, had completed the prescribed appraisal processes and had achieved a qualifying performance score.
In these circumstances, I find that the respondent’s decision to deny the applicant the 1.5% pay progression adjustment was not supported by a proper interpretation of the applicable collective agreements and was therefore unfair.
Having regard to the totality of the evidence, I am satisfied that the applicant has discharged the onus resting upon him and has established, on a balance of probabilities, that he was entitled to be considered for and granted the 1.5% pay progression adjustment arising from the January 2022 to December 2022 performance cycle.
The applicant accordingly succeeds in his claim.
AWARD
The respondent, the Gauteng Department of Education, committed an unfair labour practice relating to benefits by refusing to grant the applicant the 1.5% pay progression adjustment arising from the January 2022 to December 2022 QMS cycle.
The respondent is ordered to adjust the applicant’s salary by granting the 1.5% pay progression adjustment applicable to the January 2022 to December 2022 performance cycle.
The respondent is further ordered to calculate and pay all remuneration and benefits flowing from the implementation of the 1.5% pay progression adjustment, including any arrear amounts due from 1 July 2023.
The aforesaid calculation, adjustment, and payment must be effected on or before 30 June 2026.