10 March 2026 -ELRC961-25/26GP

Commissioner: Nzwisisai L Dandadzi
Case No.: ELRC961-25/26GP
Date of Award: 9 March 2026

In the matter between:

TSHIKUDU NDITSHENI AND OTHERS
(Union / Applicant)

And

CENTRAL JOHANNESBURG TVET COLLEGE
(Respondent)

DETAILS OF THE HEARING

The matter was heard via Microsoft Teams on 19 February 2026. The Applicants are Tshikhudo Nditsheni, Maggie Vivian Nomathemba Maneli, Phakula Vannele Wynella, Moleli Nyakallo Portia, Komane Meriam Joyce and Mashishi Sibongile Busisiwe
The Respondent was represented by Thokozane Nkambule an official in its employment.
The Applicants referred a dispute to the Council contending that the Respondent had failed to comply with the provisions of Collective Agreement No. 3 of 2013 concluded in the Education Labour Relations Council.
BACKGROUND
The Applicants contend that they should be converted by the Respondent to be employed in permanent positions in accordance the provisions of Collective Agreement No. 3 of 2013 concluded in the Education Labour Relations Council. The Respondent disputes the alleged failure to comply as contended by the Respondent.
ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
I must determine whether the Respondent failed to apply Collective Agreement No. 3 of 2013 concluded in the Education Labour Relations Council.

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS

What follows below is a summary of the evidence led at the proceedings. The recordings and handwritten notes contain a full record of all the evidence that was lead at the hearing.

The Applicants called two witnesses.
The Applicants’ first witness Joyce Linda Komana testified that she was employed by the Respondent on 4 February 2024 as a lecturer for Level 2 and Level 4 English. The witness testified that she remains in the employ of the Respondent and that her contract is due to terminate on 31 December 2026. The witness further testified that the position she occupies is a vacant post and that the Applicant is a qualified lecturer who is registered with the South African Council for Educators (SACE).
The witness was not cross-examined by the Respondent.
The Applicants’ second witness, Nyakallo Moled testified that she commenced employment with the Respondent on 6 July 2020 and that she is employed on a fixed-term contract, which is also due to terminate on 31 December 2026. The witness testified that she has been employed at the college for approximately five to six years. She further testified that the Respondent did not migrate her position, although she received a migration letter.
The witness testified that as from June 2025, she was employed as a P1 Lecturer responsible for Office Duties, Life Orientation and Business Operations. The witness further testified that she is a qualified lecturer holding a Higher Diploma in Education and is registered with SACE. The witness testified that the position she occupies is a vacant post for Office Practice. She further testified that prior to commencing her duties she underwent the Respondent’s official recruitment process.
The witness was not cross-examined by the Respondent.
The Respondent called its representative Thokozane Nkambule as a witness and he testified that the Respondent was responding to allegations that it had failed to comply with and apply Collective Agreement ERC 2 of 2013 by not making the Applicants permanent employees. The witness testified that the Applicants had called witnesses who stated that the first witness had been employed as a lecturer from February 2024, and that the second witness testified that she had been employed on a fixed-term contract, which is due to expire on 31 December 2026. The witness further testified that both individuals were qualified lecturers.
The witness testified that the Applicants had not led evidence explaining how the Respondent had failed to implement the resolution. According to the witness, no evidence or documentary proof had been presented to demonstrate that the Respondent had failed to implement the collective agreement.
The witness therefore testified that there was nothing before the Council to suggest that the Respondent had failed to implement the resolution. The witness maintained that the employees were currently employed by the Respondent and that the Respondent had not failed to implement the resolution as alleged. The witness further testified that no case had been made out to support the allegation of non-implementation of the resolution.
Under cross-examination, the witness testified that if the Applicant’s witnesses had testified that they had been appointed and were working, there would be no basis to claim non-compliance with Resolution 3 of 2018. The witness further testified that if the Applicants were appointed and currently working, it indicated that Human Resources had complied with the necessary HR processes.
The witness testified that he was not aware of the specific duties that the Applicants were required to perform and further that there was no basis upon which it could be concluded that the Respondent had contravened the resolution, nor was there evidence indicating what aspects of the resolution the Respondent had allegedly failed to comply with. The witness maintained that no evidence had been presented to demonstrate a failure by the Respondent to comply with the resolution.

ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS

The dispute before the Commission concerns the alleged non-implementation of Collective Agreement No. 3 of 2013 concluded in the Education Labour Relations Council. The agreement deals with the establishment of parity between conditions of service of college-appointed lecturers and those employed in the public service. In terms of the agreement, the intention was to ensure that lecturers employed by colleges receive conditions of service and benefits applicable to employees employed under the Public Service Act, alternatively that lecturers employed for shorter periods may receive 37% in lieu of benefits.
For the Applicants to succeed in this matter, they were required to demonstrate, how the Respondent failed to implement the provisions of the collective agreement in respect of them. Having considered the evidence I find that the Applicants failed to discharge this onus for several reasons.
Firstly, the Applicants called two witnesses, both of whom testified regarding their employment with the Respondent. The evidence of these witnesses established that they were currently employed by the Respondent as lecturers and that their contracts run until 31 December 2026. The witnesses also testified that they are qualified lecturers and registered with SACE. However, their testimony did not explain how the Respondent had failed to implement the collective agreement. While reference was made to the existence of vacant posts and their qualifications, no evidence was led demonstrating which specific provisions of the collective agreement the Respondent allegedly failed to implement.
Secondly, no documentary evidence was submitted to demonstrate the alleged non-implementation of the collective agreement. In disputes concerning the interpretation or application of collective agreements, parties are generally expected to provide evidence showing what the agreement requires and how the employer has failed to comply with those obligations. This was not done in this case.
Thirdly, although five Applicants referred the dispute, only two Applicants testified during the arbitration proceedings. No evidence was led in respect of the remaining three Applicants. The Commission was therefore not placed in a position to assess their individual circumstances or determine whether the collective agreement had been applied to them or not.
This omission is significant. The Applicants were represented by a trade union official, and no explanation was provided for the failure to present evidence on behalf of the remaining Applicants. In the absence of such evidence, the Commission cannot make findings in their favour.
Fourthly, the Respondent’s witness testified that no evidence had been presented to demonstrate non-compliance with the collective agreement, and that the Applicants had not explained how the Respondent allegedly contravened the agreement. This evidence remained largely uncontested on the central issue of non-implementation. While it is noted that the Respondent did not cross-examine certain aspects of the Applicants’ evidence, the difficulty remains that the Applicants’ own evidence did not establish the alleged breach of the collective agreement.
In the circumstances, the evidence presented by the Applicants does not demonstrate that the Respondent failed to implement Collective Agreement 3 of 2013. Accordingly, I find that the Applicants have failed to make out a case for the alleged non-implementation of the collective agreement.

RULING

The Applicants have not made out a case for the relief sought. The referral is accordingly dismissed.
The Education Labour Relations Council is directed to close the file.

Dated at Johannesburg on this 9 March 2026