Panellist: Themba Manganyi
Case No.: ELRC1126-25/26GP
Dates of Hearing: 04 May 2026
Date of Arguments: 08 May 2026
Date of Award: 15 May 2026

In the Arbitration between

SADTU OBO PRINCE SILINDENI ZULU APPLICANT

and

HEAD OF DEARTMENT: DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER 1ST RESPONDENT
EDUCATION AND TRAINING

and

CENTRAL JOHANNESBURG COLLEGE 2ND RESPONDENT
Details of hearing and representation

1. This is an arbitration award in terms of section 138(7) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (“the LRA”), as amended, following an alleged unfair labour practice dispute (benefits) referred to the Education Labour Relations Council (“the Council”).
2. The arbitration proceedings were conducted on 04 May 2026 at the Central Johannesburg College. The applicant, Mr Prince Silindeni Zulu (“Mr Zulu”), attended the proceedings and he was represented by Mr Thando Hlatshwayo (“Mr Hlatshwayo”), a SADTU Official. Mr Thokozani Nkambule (“Mr Nkambule”), a Labour Relations Officer, represented both the respondents, the Head of Department: Department of Higher Education and Training and Central Johannesburg College, the 1st and 2nd respondents, respectively.
3. The parties submitted bundles of documents into the record and the contents thereof were not in dispute. The applicant’s bundle was marked as Bundle A and respondents’ bundle was marked as Bundle R. At the end of the proceedings, parties requested to submit their written heads of arguments on or before 08 May 2026 and they duly complied. The proceedings were recorded and the recording thereof was retained by the Council.

Issue to be decided

4. I am enjoined in these proceedings to determine whether the respondents subjected the applicant to an unfair labour practice as contemplated in section 186(2)(a) of the LRA.

Background

5. The applicant is employed as a lecturer by the Department of Higher Education and Training (“the DHET”) and he is placed at the Central Johannesburg College (“the CJC”). The applicant was awarded a bursary by the ETDP SETA and he enrolled at the University of KwaZulu Natal. To this end, the applicant and the ETDP SETA concluded a Bursary Agreement . The applicant attended contact sessions at the UKZN and he incurred travel and accommodation costs amounting to R35 000, 00 and he claims that the respondents are liable to reimburse him these costs on the basis that he was blocked from attending further contact sessions.
6. On the other hand, the respondents contended that the applicant was not eligible for the travel and accommodation benefits as claimed by the applicant and that the Bursary Agreement (“the Agreement”) was entered into between the applicant and the ETDP SETA. As a relief, the applicant wanted reimbursement of the costs that he incurred from the respondents.

Summary of evidence and arguments

The Applicant’s case

7. Mr Zulu testified under oath and stated that he lodged a grievance after he was blocked from studying in the second semester of the year 2025. The grievance meeting was held on 08 August 2025 where the Principal of the college chaired the meeting and Mr Nkambule and the Deputy Principal: Corporate attended the meeting. In that meeting he requested to be reimbursed for his travel and accommodation for the second semester. He stated that he was promised that he will be funded for his studies. However, the Campus Manager, Mr Noko Madibana (“Mr Madibana”), blocked him from studying by writing an email to UKZN advising the institution that the applicant did not have the provisions for annual or study leave to attend classes. He stated that he did not know why Mr Madibana wrote the email on his behalf without his consent. He testified that at the grievance hearing meeting it was resolved that he must submit his subsistence and travel claim and he did as advised, but the claim is not yet paid.
8. Under cross-examination, he stated that the Agreement was between the ETDP SETA, the CJC and himself and that in terms of the Agreement, the ETDP SETA was going to pay for his tuition. He confirmed that there was nowhere in the Agreement where it was stated that he will be funded for travel and accommodation. He restated that there were travel benefits that accrued to him. When referred to page 23 of Bundle R, he stated that he understood the email to be saying that there was no agreement between the parties about what was discussed. He conceded that he was supposed to attend the contact sessions from 22 to 26 July 2024. He stated that he did not attend the contact sessions because Mr Madibana blocked him from attending. He disputed that Mr Madibana write the email of 22 July 2024 in his presence and on his instruction. He stated that Mr Madibana wrote the email on page 26 of Bundle R to mislead and to manipulate the situation.

The Respondent’s case

9. Mr Sabelo Plaatjie (“Mr Plaatjie”) testified under oath and stated that he was employed at the CJC as the Acting Deputy Principal for Corporate Services. He identified the Agreement on page 12 to 22 of Bundle R and he stated that the Agreement was between the applicant and the ETDP SETA and that the college only facilitated the submissions of names of lecturers to the ETDP SETA. He testified that the respondents do not have any benefits that are owed to the applicant emanating from this Agreement. He stated that page 25 of Bundle R was an email to invite the applicant to a grievance meeting since there was no meeting of minds between the parties. However, the applicant did not attend the meeting.
10. Under cross-examination, he stated that he was part of the first grievance meeting. He confirmed that the document on page 6 of Bundle A was the travel claim form. He commented that the respondents were not liable for disbursement for travel for the ETDP SETA training. He stated the 1st respondent’s Leave Policy made provisions for study leave. He could not comment that Mr Madibana lied to Mr Nkambule that the applicant was going to attend the contact sessions from 23 to 27 September 2024 at UKZN.
11. Mr Madibana testified under affirmation and he stated that he was the Campus Manager for CJC at Alexandra Campus. He referred to the letter on page 24 of Bundle R and identified it as a letter from UKZN inviting the applicant for contact sessions. He stated that he wrote the email on page 25 of Bundle R on the applicant’s request in the applicant’s presence because the applicant told him that he had financial constraints to attend the contact sessions. He testified that he wrote the email on page 26 of Bundle R to Mr Nkambule because he held the view that the applicant was still attending contact sessions at UKZN. He denied the version that he blocked the applicant from attending the contact sessions at UKZN.
12. Under cross-examination, he stated that he could not communicate to UKZN that the applicant did not have the financial means to attend the contact sessions. Hence, he mentioned that the applicant did not have the study leave to attend the contact sessions as that would be a plausible explanation for the applicant’s non-attendance. He stated that the DHET Leave Policy provides for the study leave. He stated that the applicant was in his office in the morning of 22 July 2024 when he wrote the email to UKZN and that he was not sure about the applicant’s whereabouts on the week of 23 to 27 September 2024. He stated that he did not sign anything for the applicant to be excused to attend the contact sessions. He disputed that he misled Mr Nkambule that the applicant was going to attend the contact sessions at UKZN from 23 to 27 September 2024. He stated that UKZN did not respond to his email. So he was under the impression that the applicant was still attending the contact sessions.

Analysis of evidence and arguments

13. Section 185(b) of the LRA prescribes that every employee has the right not to be subjected to an unfair labour practice and section 186(2)(a) of the LRA defines unfair labour practice as any unfair act or omission that arises between an employer and an employee involving 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.
14. The factual matrix of this dispute turns on the reimbursement of the travel and accommodation expenses amounting to about R35 000, 00 that the applicant incurred when he attended the contact sessions at UKZN. It is common cause that the applicant was awarded a bursary by the ETDP SETA. The parties entered into an agreement and the purpose of the Agreement was to ensure that the provisions and prescripts of the ETDP SETA Bursary Fund are binding to the Bursar and the EDTP SETA. The Bursar in this instance is the applicant. The Agreement in clause 5 (page 18 of Bundle R) stipulate the roles and responsibilities of the ETDP SETA. Amongst these responsibilities there is no provision that the ETDP SETA will provide the Bursar with the travel and accommodation costs. There is also nowhere in the agreement where a provision is made that the participating employers will carry such costs.
15. The applicant’s argument is centered on the premise that he was blocked from attending contact sessions at UKZN whilst he has already incurred travel and accommodation costs in preparation for the contact sessions. In his understanding, the grievance meeting resolved that he will be reimbursed for his wasted costs. However, the respondents held a completely different view and understanding. This is evident on the email that Mr Nkambule wrote to the applicant on 07 November 2025 wherein he stated that ‘there were no meeting of minds’ (sic). Mr Nkambule further in the same email invited the applicant to a further meeting to discuss his grievance. In my view, there would not be a need for another meeting if the grievance was resolved amicably. Unfortunately, the applicant did not attend that meeting and he did not even communicate his non-attendance.
16. The communiqué that apparently blocked him was authored by Mr Madibana on 22 July 2024 at 08h29. The contact sessions as per page 24 of Bundle R were scheduled for 22 – 26 July 2024 and again on 23 – 27 September 2024 . The applicant disputed that he instructed Mr Madibana to author that email on his behalf. The applicant further disputed that he was in Mr Madibana’s presence when the email was written. I find the applicant’s version not plausible. The applicant knew as at 17 July 2024 that he had to attend the contact sessions at UKZN and there was no evidence that the applicant presented that he was indeed at UKZN on the morning of 22 July 2024. It does not make any sense that Mr Madibana would have blocked the applicant on the morning of the first day of the contact sessions whilst he was already supposed to be at UKZN. This clearly shows that the applicant did not have any intentions to attend the contact sessions on 22 July 2024. The applicant disputed that he was at Mr Madibana’s office when Mr Madibana wrote the email to UKZN, but in the same vein, the applicant did not submit any evidence that he was at UKZN for the contact sessions. I therefore find Mr Madibana’s version more plausible.
17. Having considered all the evidence that was presented in these proceedings, I find that the applicant’s claim does not fall within the ambit of section 186(2)(a) of the LRA – benefits. Generally, the applicant will be entitled to subsistence and travel allowance when he attends training that is organized by the respondents and not by a third party (EDTP SETA). The applicant was well aware from the onset that he was responsible for his travel and accommodation whenever he had to attend contact sessions and that he did. It is only now that he holds a view that he has to be reimbursed because he incurred travel and accommodation costs and after incurring these costs, he wants to be reimbursed because Mr Madibana blocked him.

Award

18. I find that the applicant, Mr Prince Silindeni Zulu, did not succeed in discharging his burden of proof that the respondents subjected him to an unfair labour practice as contemplated in section 186(2)(a) of the LRA.
19. This application is therefore dismissed.
20. The Council must close this case file accordingly.

18. Arbitrator: Themba Manganyi