IN THE ELRC ARBITRATION
BETWEEN:

Daniel Rammusi Mokoeni Applicant
and
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION – North-West Respondent

ARBITRATION AWARD

Case Number: ELRC530-24/25NW

Arbitration date: 4 February 2025

Date of Award: 06 March 2025

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

1. This dispute came before me for the first time at arbitration on 31 October 2024, which was held on Microsoft Teams. The dispute was partly heard. On 27 November 2024, a further and final arbitration hearing was held on 4 February 2025 at Brits.
2. This arbitration was held 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 Act”. The award is issued in terms of section 138 (7) of the “Act”.
3. The applicant is Daniel Rammusi Mokoeni, and he was in attendance, he initially represented himself before he was represented by Mr. Isaac Teke Mothibe, an Attorney from Isaac Teke Mothibe Attorneys INC. The respondent is the Department of Education: Northwest Province and was represented by Ms Boitumelo Phuswane, Labour Relations Officer.

PRELIMINARY ISSUE

4. Ms. Boitumelo Phuswane raised a jurisdictional objection in that the applicant has referred to an unfair labour practice relating to demotion. She indicated that the demotion referred to by the applicant is that he has been removed from one grade 12 to another and that should be done through the leading of evidence. This point fails on that basis.
5. She submitted that this is not a demotion in terms of section 186 (2) of the Labour Relations Act.
6. She further submitted that the respondent is also guided by the relief the applicant is seeking, which is going back to Grade 12. She indicated that in terms of section 193, there are remedies the Commissioner can award. She argued that the ELRC would not have jurisdiction to arbitrate this dispute.

IN OPPOSITION

7. The applicant submitted that he wanted to state that the relief he is seeking is compensation, but he was advised by the Commissioner during conciliation that he could not change.

ANALYSIS

8. The principle of common law states that “who alleges must prove”. The ELRC cannot decide the jurisdictional issue at face value. The applicant must establish the existence of unfair labour practices.
9. Finally, Ms Phuswane challenges the jurisdiction of ELRC based on remedy. I am of the view that this is a serious cause of delay in the resolution of this dispute resulting from the respondent’s illogical points.
10. In terms of section 193 (4) of the “LRA”, an appointed arbitrator in terms of the [Act] may determine any unfair labour practice dispute referred to him or her, on terms that he or she deems reasonable, which may include ordering reinstatement, re-employment or compensation.
11. It is clear from the above that the parties cannot agree on whether reinstatement, re-employment, or compensation should be the remedy in the dispute. It is determined by the arbitrator following his or her decision that there was an unfair labour practice. Ms Phuswane’s argument that the ELRC lacks jurisdiction based on the remedy chosen by the applicant is misplaced. The parties had recorded in the pre-arb minutes that he is seeking an award to go back to the Grade 12 he was teaching. There is nothing wrong with asking for this type of remedy. Section 193 of the “LRA” is clear on the remedies available. It is the discretion of the arbitrator as to what remedy to award the applicant in the event the arbitrator decides that there was unfairness. Even if the applicant did not use exact words in the “LRA”, I am of the view that the remedy sought falls within the ambit of the “LRA”.
12. In an unfair labour practice dispute, an obligation is placed on the arbitrators to restore the status quo.
13. Regarding the above, I believe that the jurisdictional objection fails on that basis and the ELRC does enjoy jurisdiction to hear this matter.

APPLICATION FOR RECUSAL

14. At the end of the cross-examination of the applicant, more in particular, after clarity seeking questions from me to the applicant, Ms. Boitumelo Phuswane made an application for my recusal. She submitted that the Commissioner is deliberately flouting the procedure in terms of how this process must run. Firstly, they raised a jurisdictional point, Rule 17 indicates that the party that referred the matter must prove that indeed the Council has jurisdiction to deal with the matter. She indicated that the applicant has never made any presentation to indicate that the Council has jurisdiction, and the Commissioner ruled without complying with that part of the ELRC Rules as outlined in the Constitution. She indicated that the Commissioner should have allowed the applicant to present a case to see whether the Council indeed has jurisdiction.
15. Secondly, in terms of how evidence must be presented, the party that must begin or to prove will present evidence-in-chief, then cross-examination and re-exam, that’s it. Further, the Commissioner can ask questions and allow parties to also ask questions relating to only what the Commissioner has spoken to when asking questions of clarity. She also observed that the Commissioner flouted the procedure by allowing the applicant to bring new evidence during the re-exam. She submitted that there is a reasonable apprehension of bias because the Commissioner favors the applicant.

IN OPPOSITION

16. The applicant submitted that it could be correct that the respondent feels that maybe certain things are not going their way, so she should dictate terms. The Commissioner is there to engage, based on what the Commissioner explained in the beginning, they would be allowed to present, and the decision lies with the Commissioner. He is of the view that the proceedings should continue.

ANALYSIS

17. In terms of section 138(1) of the “LRA”, I am required to conduct the arbitration in a manner that I consider appropriate to determine the dispute fairly and quickly but must deal with the substantial merits of the dispute with the minimum of legal formalities. Subsection (2) further provides that a party to the dispute is, subject to my discretion as to the appropriate form of the proceedings, allowed to present evidence, call witnesses, ask questions to the witnesses of any other party, and address the concluding arguments to me.
18. I indeed presented the parties with an opportunity to raise any preliminary issue. It must be noted that despite this not being recorded in their pre-arb minutes, I have granted it. It must also be noted that the applicant was not represented in these proceedings, and he has stated from the beginning that he is not familiar with these proceedings. It is, therefore, the duty of the Commissioner to assist lay parties.
19. Ms Phuswane raised the jurisdictional issue, which I dealt with and made the ruling. The issue she raised warranted evidence to be led as this issue was a factual one. I do not have to repeat the aforementioned ruling. I am therefore of the view that this point has no basis for my recusal.
20. Finally, Ms. Phuswane made an application for recusal on the basis I did not allow her to ask the applicant questions after I sought clarity on the evidence-in-chief. The issue I raised with the applicant was not new evidence and she failed to cross-examine him on it. It must be noted that I allowed Ms. Phuswane to cross-examine the applicant twice following her allegation that the applicant had brought new evidence after cross-examination. It was not true; however, I gave the benefit of the doubt to cross-examine the applicant. She re-opened cross-examination instead of cross-examining the applicant only on the issue he testified on.
21. It appeared that Ms. Phuswane was challenging me on everything. She neglected that she was a representative of the respondent, and she wanted to control the proceedings. Her conduct was assailable on that day.
22. In Raswiswi v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (2011) 9 BLLR 911 (LC), the court said: A major theme in the Constitutional Court’s refinement of the test was to emphasize that not only must the apprehension of bias be that of a reasonable person in the position of the person being judged who has an objective factual basis for their suspicion, but the apprehension of bias they have must be one that in law would be recognized as raising a legitimate about the adjudicator’s impartiality.”
23. I agree with the applicant’s argument that it is not correct that if things do not go one’s way, it should raise the question of impartiality. It would not have been proper to allow Ms Phuswane to behave in the manner that she did, especially taking advantage of the fact that the applicant was not represented and was not familiar with these proceedings. She wanted me to grant an “open cross-examination” because whenever she remembers that she forgot to ask the applicant a particular question, I must open a cross-examination for her. This is unacceptable.
24. Nonetheless, I find Ms Phuswane’s application for my recusal does not demonstrate that I will not be impartial. This application seems to be fanciful and devoid of merit.
25. Having regard to the above, the application for recusal should fail because the respondent did not satisfy the requirements for apprehension of bias.
    ISSUE TO BE DECIDED
26. I am required to determine whether the conduct of the respondent to remove the applicant from teaching Grade 12 classes constituted an unfair labour practice. In the event, I decide that (a) it constitutes an unfair labour practice, determine an appropriate remedy, or (b) I decide it does not constitute an unfair labour practice, make an appropriate order.

BACKGROUND

27. The parties did hold a pre-arbitration on 4 October 2024 and their pre-arb minutes recorded the following under common cause issues: 6.1 The applicant is currently a PL1 educator employed by the respondent at Eletsa Secondary School. 6.2 The applicant’s salary and benefits have not been changed. 6.3 The applicant previously taught Grade 12 learners English First Additional Language and since 17 July 2024, he has been made to teach Grade 10 learners English First Additional Language.
28. In terms of the facts that are in dispute, the parties recorded the following:
    28.1 Unfair labour practice demotion.
    28.2 If demotion has taken place, the applicant claims that no procedure was followed.
    28.3 If demotion has taken place, the applicant claims that there were no valid grounds for the same.
    THE APPLICANT’s EVIDENCE
29. He testified that on 17 July 2024, he was called to a meeting by the SMT. The members of the SMT are Mrs. Rashophola (the principal), Mr. Mhlongo (the Acting Deputy Principal), Mr. Phakwe (the previous Departmental Head), Mr. Motau (the Departmental Head), and Mr. Pule (Departmental Head for Languages and his senior).
30. He testified that he was told that they had a report from the Senior Education Specialist, Mr. Gumba, and Ms Kemp for English and the FET Coordinator, Mr. Mogorosi. They told him that the SES recommends that he be removed from teaching Grade 12 classes and be taken to teaching Grade 10 classes. At the time he had two Grade 12 classes and two Grade 10 classes.
31. He testified that he did ask how they recommended it. In response, they said his performance was very poor, he was intimidating learners, and he was behind with curriculum coverage in terms of literature. He was then furnished with the timetable, and he started attending those classes as he did not want to commit misconduct relating to insubordination, but he told them that he was unhappy about it.
32. He testified that he asked them to furnish him with the report. The principal then said he should come the following day. He was then the following day furnished with the draft minutes of their sitting. He then asked them “Effective when?” and their response was “Today”. He was never furnished with the report.
33. He testified that he wrote a formal correspondence to the principal on 31 July 2024. He made a follow-up in a letter dated 5 August 2024.
34. He testified that he then decided to engage his union, SADTU, which was represented by the branch chairperson and the branch Secretary. He testified that on 20 August 2024, he engaged the Circuit Manager, where he outlined everything that transpired and attached the necessary documents to show that indeed he tried to engage.
35. He further testified that the following day the Departmental official came to the school and requested to speak to him, who informed him that they had received his complaint, and were dealing with it. Having realized that nothing was coming from the Circuit Manager, and in his communication, he indicated that if he was not getting joy, he would approach the ELRC.
36. He testified that he has been marking external Grade 12 final papers for several years, which on its own speaks to a level of his competency on the subject. He produced eleven distinctions in his school, and no one has ever managed such distinctions alone. No one should speak to his competence and commitment to his work.
37. He testified under cross-examination that he is a teacher in the Department at post level 1. He has been appointed as an educator since 2008. He confirmed that his duty is to teach learners. He testified that he was demoted on 17 July 2024. He also testified that from 17 July 2024 to the present he is still a teacher, earning the same salary, and the benefits have not changed.
38. He testified that marking external exams is an opportunity besides the monetary value attached to it, to learn new things as far as quality when marking Grade 12 exams, which is a benefit. He testified that teachers do apply and not everyone gets appointed. Being appointed means it is on merit. He agreed to a system of rotation in his school. He could be rotated to teach Grade 10, Grade 11, or Grade 12, which is not a problem because he is a teacher, but there are ways and means of doing it. It cannot be done randomly. It should be informed by certain facts. It happens annually. He never had a problem teaching other grades, but rotation must be done with a procedure. He has an opportunity to earn extra money, he runs the camps by going to develop other learners from other schools where there are challenges, even locally The department is running camps where Grade 12ves will be expected to come and the teacher to go the extra mile to prepare these learners for a final examination so that they can be able to compete with other provinces by performing better, the respondent realizes that by offering benefit in a form of money to those teachers who are willing to go the extra mile by developing and preparing these learners for the upcoming examination and beyond.
39. He testified that not every teacher teaching Grade 10 or Grade 11 is eligible to mark external exams; eligibility depends on the number of years spent teaching Grade 12. He stated that his responsibilities regarding teaching Grade 12 have changed, which he views as a demotion. Demotion does not relate solely to salary, as he is still earning the same amount. He testified that he was the only teacher subjected to this scrutiny while his subject was performing exceptionally well, and as an educator, he is excelling in this area. Every year, he produces a top learner in the province among those presented.

THE RESPONDENT’s EVIDENCE
THE EVIDENCE OF JETHRO PULE: THE DEPARTMENTAL HEAD LANGUAGES

40. He testified that he is based at Eletsa Secondary School. He has been at the school for fourteen (14) months.
41. He testified that he knew the applicant because he found him there at the school, and he was the teacher at the school. At the school, they offer two languages: English and Setswana. He is teaching English.
42. He testified that the applicant has been teaching both Grade 10 and Grade 12, but after reshuffling he is teaching Grade 12. It did happen in July 2024.
43. He testified that on 15 July 2024, the SES came to the school unannounced and demanded the learners’ books, which they gave to them. They left the SES members to do their job. After they finished, they called the SMT to give them the report, their findings, and what transpired concerning his department, particularly English. They deliberated lengthily on Mathematics and English. The SES recommended that the applicant be taken out of Grade 12 because of gaps they found there. Their recommendation was verbal and was made in front of Mam Masemola (the subdistrict coordinator), and Mam Mogorosi (the sub-coordinator).
44. He testified that as the report the SES was giving had gaps of having 18 class works marked, the SMTM had to sit down after the SES left and address the issue.
45. He testified that on 16 July 2024, the SMT had a lengthy meeting discussing what the SES said. Given that they had very few two months to write exams, the SMT deemed it fit in the interest of a child to reshuffle, and he was tasked by the SMT to make sure that he came up with the recovery plan. He must teach and close the gaps that were identified by the SES.
46. He testified that on 17 July 2025, the affected teachers were called, and the applicant was called at about 14:00 when the SMT made him aware of the findings of the SES and the then reshuffling was going to be done. The applicant then asked the question: “When?” It was said with immediate effect in the interest of a child; they did not have time.
47. He testified that demotion is the opposite of promotion. When one is elevated, one moves from one level to another. He did not understand the demotion because the applicant was still at the school, with the same salary and the same rank. The post levels are 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. The applicant was level 1 before July 2024, and after July 2024, he is still level 1.
48. He testified that a teacher must apply for marking to be appointed. The chief markers and assessors will come to select the markers.
49. He testified under cross-examination that he did not agree that the applicant was removed from teaching Grade 12 for performance. He agreed that the applicant did not do some of the things. He testified that it is the SMT’s jurisdiction to allocate, reallocate, and reshuffle if needs arise. He testified that the applicant is no longer teaching Grade 12. He further testified that the findings were verbal. He did not answer when it was put to him that this was hearsay evidence. He also testified that the applicant did not deserve to be allowed to close those gaps because it was said that the applicant could not go the extra mile. He further testified that he did not know that demotion was not about salary or rank.

THE EVIDENCE OF EMANUEL GUMBA: THE CIRCUIT ADVISOR

50. He testified that he had been a subject advisor for fifteen (15) years, starting from 2009. He started working as Acting Departmental Head for English and Setswana. The school has skeleton management.
51. He testified that his job entails advising the educators, assisting with the subject, which is English, checking that the learners are getting quality teaching and learning in the subject daily, and assisting teachers in performing their duties.
52. He testified that it is true that he does visit schools. He drafts plans every month to visit the 40 schools. In July 2024, he did visit the school.
53. He testified that he started by calling the educators to a meeting to discuss the plans and intervention strategies to improve performance in quantity and quality. He awards teachers for best performance with particular reference to those that met the performance they have set, the monitoring and moderation processes, which are mainly for the benefit of the Department heads present. It is also for the teachers to know that they will always be checked by the Departmental Heads in their schools. They discuss the year’s planning; he takes the teachers through ATB, a program of assessment that stipulates the quantity and types of formal tasks that make up the total assessment, formally known as the year mark, he also reminds the teachers about their agreement in ELO, the informal assessment task will indicate the pace as the policy states the informal assessment is so that they will know if there is a need for reteach. They also discuss teaching strategy in the way he advises the teachers on how to teach; they also discuss marking and control of the learners’ books. By the time the teachers leave PSF, they know teaching and learning, and there must be adherence to those.
54. He testified that he always invites teachers to professional support forum meetings. All teachers teaching Grade 10 to Grade 12 do have this information, there should be a feedback session. When they go back to school.
55. He testified that in July 2024, they made findings in terms of which it was the eighteenth (18) week after the reopening of schools in January 2024, they expected that the quantity should have been 70% from Grade 10 to Grade 12. Some teachers did not have consistency. For instance, Grade 10 had an informal assessment. In Grade 12, especially B, there were 34 informal out of 72, the correct marking guidelines were not followed, and writing tests were marked using rubrics. In this case, the teacher has just put in the marking, which does not tell the learners where they went wrong. They do not count ticks. The quantity of that informal assessment was indicative of acute or very bad content. It had not been taught following the requirements and expectations. The learners were behind in all papers.
56. He testified that after identifying the shortfalls, they normally call the Departmental Head based on their findings on that day in particular, and they gave feedback to the Departmental Head. The Grade 10 learners still have Term 1, Term 2, and Term 3 to push. They asked the Departmental Head first what they were going to do with that situation. He had requested English teachers to do recovery plans, except the teacher in Grade 12 B, who refused to take the instruction. They suggested moving the teachers around because there was a preparatory exam, and finding ways.
57. He further testified that it is possible to move the teachers around during the year in the interest of learners.
58. He also testified that as far as he knew, the arrangement in reshuffling is not permanent, it is a temporary arrangement to assist learners who are experiencing problems in learning. Therefore, he did not think that the reshuffling arrangement warranted a demotion. The applicant is still post-level 1. As the applicant’s work performance improves, the applicant might teach Grade 12 again. The applicant cannot say he was demoted because the status of a teacher from Grade R to Grade 12 does not change.
59. He also testified that he disagrees with the version of the applicant’s representative that a Grade 12 teacher has a different status because all teachers in the school are the same.
60. He further testified that if promotion is from post level 1 to post level 2, from post level 2 to post level 3, and to post level 4, and so on. Even the Departmental Head can teach Grade 10; he calls it an advantage. The requirement for marking Grade 12 is teaching the same subject in the past three years; he must be teaching the subject currently, and have a major in the subject.
61. He testified that teaching Grade 12 does not give anyone a guarantee that they will be appointed to mark Grade 12 papers. They may be appointed, and they may not be appointed. The forms are sent to the schools, all the teachers meet the SMT, they sign the forms, and they are sent to the marking section in Mafikeng, where the assessment directorate will appoint the selection panel comprising of the trade unions, members of exams and assessment. They are the ones who appoint the people who will mark the exams. The teachers will then be appointed as markers.
62. He testified under cross-examination that he did not agree that he did not understand demotion. He agreed that the applicant was removed from teaching Grade 12 to teaching only Grade 10. He testified that the school prioritized Grade 12 for urgent assistance. He further testified that they recommended that there should be a fair process. The procedure was followed by the school. He testified that he verbally said that there should be reshuffling. He agreed that the applicant was not performing following the required performance standard, but he never mentioned the applicant by his name. He testified that the performance of a teacher is not assessed by the performance of one learner. He further testified that the best learner in the province is Lethabo More, but another teacher might have contributed to the performance.

ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS

63. This dispute concerns an alleged unfair labour practice relating to demotion. Generally, it is tried law that the applicant bears the onus to establish that the conduct of the respondent constitutes an unfair labor practice, whilst the respondent is obliged to rebut the applicant’s version. In this matter, the applicant has submitted a bundle of documents, hereinafter referred to as bundle A, but he did not call additional witnesses. The respondent has called two witnesses and has submitted a bundle of documents hereinafter referred to as bundle R.
64. Both the applicant and the respondent submitted the closing arguments in writing, which I will consider in this analysis.
65. As this dispute involves unfair labour practice in terms of section 186(2) of the “LRA”, it is, therefore, first and foremost to consider the meaning of the concept itself. Section 186 (2) defines [unfair labour practice] as follows: “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.
66. Having defined what unfair labour practice is, I must now determine if the act or omission of the respondent constitutes unfair labour practice. First, it is also important to investigate the meaning of the word [demotion].

DEFINITION OF DEMOTION

67. In Koma and Others v Member of the Executive Council (MEC): Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and Others (JR1544/19) (2023) ZALCJHB 315 (2024) 2 BLLR 170 (LC) (8 November 2023), the Labour Court defined the notion “demotion” to be involving a diminishing in status, level, salary, employment conditions, responsibilities, or the like.
68. In Visser v Commissioner South African Police Service dated 27 July 2022 under case number (D18/20) (2022) Zalcd 30, the Labour Court said in terms of the meaning of [demotion] that: “A demotion therefore has less to do with the demoted employee’s salary. It would seem the reduction of salary is only a secondary factor. The primary and decisive factor being the reduction in rank, position or status of the employee concerned.”
69. In terms of the Visser judgment (Supra), the court further said that demotion even applies where employees retain their salaries, attended benefits, and rank but have suffered a reduction or demotion in their “dignity, importance and responsibility” or their “power, or status.”
70. The above assertion is in line with Mr. Mothibi’s argument in the closing argument, where he referred me to the Labour Court judgment in SA Police v Salukazana and Others (201) 31 ILJ 2465 (LC)in which the court held that demotion manifests itself in many ways. It can arise through a reduction of salary, a change of terms and conditions of employment, and a transfer. On contrary, Ms Phuswane relied on Nxele v Chief Deputy Commissioner, Corporate Services, Department of Correctional Service (CA 9/06) (2008) ZALAC 28; (2008) 12 BLLR 1179 (LAC) ; (2008) 29 ILJ 2708 (LAC) (31 July 2008), where the LAC there is a “law on the demotion in status” and the “LRA” found the transfer to amount to demotion. She argued that the applicant was not transferred to any school in any geographic location, he remained at Eletsa as a PL1 educator teaching English to Grade 10, as he had always taught them, his status was not affected, and his responsibility as a teacher did not change.
71. This brings me to the question of whether the conduct of the respondent in this regard amounted to demotion. In the present matter, it is a common cause that on 15 July 2024, the SES visited Eletsa Secondary School. It is common cause that ensuing the SES visit, the School Management Team (SMT) called the applicant to a meeting on 17 July 2024, wherein he was informed that he was no longer going to teach Grade 12. He would teach Grade 10, and that decision was effective immediately.
72. In determining whether demotion has taken place, the Labour court in Minister of Justice and Another v Bosch NO and Others (2006) 27 ILJ 166 (LC) dated 20 October 2005 said: “The inquiry into whether a demotion has taken place must commence with determining whether or not the employee has had taken from him that to which he is entitled or enjoys as a matter of right.”
73. Now the question to determine is whether by removing the applicant from teaching Grade 12 to teaching Grade 10 only is what he is entitled to or enjoyed as a matter of right. It is common cause that the applicant has been employed by the respondent as a PL1 educator since 2008. It is common cause that until 16 July 2024, the applicant has been teaching Grade 12 and Grade 10 learners. The applicant’s version is that teaching Grade 12 allows him to mark Grade 12 exams, he normally attends camps arranged by the respondent for Grade 12 learners where he develops other learners, and as an educator, gets different knowledge by being in those camps, he earns himself extra income, and he was the only one single out who has been removed, and demotion does not always talk to money.
74. While I concur with the applicant’s version that demotion is not about money, I am of the view that the applicant failed to demonstrate to this Council that he is entitled to mark Grade 12 exams. The evidence before me demonstrates that any educator wishing to mark Grade 12 exams must make an application with the Department to be eligible for appointment as marker. It is evident before me that there is a selection committee established within the respondent to handle the applications received from candidates interested in marking Grade 12 exams. This evidence remains undisputed by the applicant.
75. It is therefore evident that the applicant is not entitled to mark Grade 12 exams, but teaching Grade 12 is one of the requirements for an educator to be considered for appointment to mark Grade 12 exams.
76. In addition, Mr. Mothibi argues that the applicant’s version is that he was demoted in terms of status or prestige and as such there is a difference in status or prestige between the two positions and the transfer or removal or reshuffling constituting demotion.
77. I wish to record in this regard that I agree with Ms. Phuswane’s argument that the applicant has not been transferred to any school and any geographic location, but he remained at Eletsa as PL1 educator, teaching English to the Grade 10 as he has always taught them, and his status was not affected and his responsibilities as an educator did not change. Moreover, it is common cause that rotation of educators does take place at the school. I am of the view that the issue of the period when it takes place is immaterial, as it seems in this regard other factors influenced such action by the respondent at the time.
78. Mr. Mothibi’s argument in this regard is that if a movement leads to a reduction in status, and such movement constitutes demotion. He relied on the Labour Court decision in SA Police v Salukazana and Others (2010) 31 ILJ 2465 (LC). However, I am of the view that what the Labour Court in Koma and Others v Member of the Executive Council (MEC) Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and Others (2024) 2 BLLR 170 (LC) dated 8 November 2023 said that demotion should involve a diminishing in status, level, salary, employment conditions responsibilities or the like.
79. In the present matter, the applicant is a PL1 educator. He falls within three years, within which an educator is allowed to apply for marking Grade 12 exams. He has always taught Grade 10, and he has no challenge in teaching such a grade. His duties of teaching have not changed, it is still the same and he is still reporting to the Departmental Head, Mr. Pule, who in turn reports to the principal. Rotation is part of the school practice. This movement did not diminish the status of the applicant. It is the respondent’s prerogative to allocate the educators’ classes through the schools and as such the ELRC has no jurisdiction to interfere with it.
80. I further wish to record that the applicant failed to dispute the version of both respondent’s witnesses that his removal was effected in the interest of a learner. I therefore agree with Ms Phuswane’s argument that the applicant has failed to prove unfair labour practice relating to demotion. There was no decision to demote the applicant in any manner as the applicant is still at the school, he is earning the same salary and the same rank.
81. Concerning the above, I am of the view that the conduct of the respondent by removing the applicant from teaching Grade 12 to only teaching Grade 10 does not constitute unfair labour practice relating to demotion.
82. Having regard to the above, I am of the view that the applicant has failed to discharge the onus to establish the existence of unfair labour practice relating to demotion.
83. On the premises, I find the following award to be competent:

AWARD

84. I find the applicant, Daniel Rammusi Mokoeni, has failed in establishing that the respondent, Department of Education: Northwest Province, committed unfair labour practices.
85. As a result of the above, this matter is dismissed.

P. Maitsha
ELRC Panelist