IN THE EDUCATION LABOUR RELATIONS COUNCIL
HELD AT DURBAN

ARBITRATION AWARD

Case Number: ELRC863-21/22 KZN
Commissioner: Protas Cele
Date of Award: 15 May 2026

In the ARBITRATION between

Sipho Mhlongo Applicant

(Union / Applicant)

And

Department of Higher Education and Training 1st Respondent

Thekwini TVET College 2nd Respondent

(Respondent)

Details of hearing and representation

1. The matter was set down for arbitration hearing at Thekwini TVET College, Asherville Campus, Asherville on 21 October 2025, 27 October 2025, 3 December 2025, 11 February 2026, 13 February 2026 and 13 – 15 April 2026.
2. The Applicant appeared in person and was represented by Lwazi Mnguni, an attorney from Mnguni Associates Inc. Sakhile Mthethwa, the Labour Relations Practitioner, appeared on behalf of the 1st Respondent.
3. Mr. Mnguni produced a bundle of documents which was marked bundle A (Volume 1: Page 1 – 66) and led the evidence of three witnesses. Mr Mthethwa presented bundles of documents which were marked bundle B1 (page 1 – 67), Bundle 2 (Page 1 – 7) and bundle C (Volume 2: page 1 – 120), and led the evidence of six witnesses.
4. The proceedings were conducted in English and isiZulu and digitally recorded. The interpreter was Ms. Nontethelelo Ndlovu.

Issues to be decided

5. I am required to decide:
   (a) whether or not the Applicant was dismissed, and if so, whether the dismissal was substantively and procedurally fair; or
   (b) He retired in accordance with section 16(6) of the Public Service Act of 1994, without pension penalties.

Background to the dispute

6. The following facts were either agreed or not disputed:

a) That the Applicant commenced employment with the 2nd Respondent in 2000 as a lecturer and he became a campus manager in 2010 at Melbourne Campus and earned R543,228 per annum;

b) That on 15 July 2019 the Applicant applied for early retirement without reduction of pension benefits in terms of section 16(6) of the Public Service Act of 1994;

c) That on 13 December 2021, PM Majali, Deputy Principal signed the termination of service form in terms of which the Applicant exited the system;

d) That the country went into Covid-19 lockdown on 27 March 2020 with the effect that no person was allowed to leave their homes except for essential services, until around and towards the end of May 2020 when the alert levels were reduced;

e) That there has been a substantial amount of delay in the finalisation of the matter since it was initially referred to the council on 7 February 2022, due to a review process of the rulings previously issued by the council as well as the GPSSBC;

f) That the Applicant’s case is that the signing of the termination of service form without him having been given an opportunity to be heard before it was signed by the Deputy Principal, amounted to an unfair dismissal;

g) That the Respondent’s contention is that the filling of the form was for the completion of the process initiated by the Applicant himself, since the Applicant was resisting to co-operate, following the approval of his application;

h) That the form which was signed by the Deputy Principal i.e. DHET/HRMA/003(a), is supposed to be completed by the employee or alternatively by the department in cases of misconduct and death;

i) That the Applicant subsequently withdrew the application for his early retirement without reduction of pension benefits;

j) That the guidelines on managing early retirement without reduction of pension benefits in the Public Service, issued by the department of Public Service and Administration in February 2019, provide that once the application has been approved by the final approval authority, it cannot be retracted for early retirement;

k) That in terms of the Human Resource Circular no. 4 of 2019 issued by the Department of Higher Education & Training on 23 April 2019, during the application process, but prior to approval, an applicant may withdraw his/her request within 30 days of the date of application; and

l) That the said circular was produced as a supplementary document to the Respondent’s bundle after the arbitration proceedings had already commenced, and it was marked bundle B2.

Survey of evidence and argument.

7. I am required in terms of section 138(7)(a) of the Labour Relations Act to issue an arbitration award with brief reasons.
8. Therefore, what follows hereunder is not an exhaustive survey of all the evidence led and arguments presented but a brief summary of the salient issues relevant to my findings only.

Applicant’s evidence

9. Sipho Mhlongo is the Applicant. He testified on his own behalf and stated that on 8 December 2021 he finished work and went on leave because the college was closing. He was due to come back on 17 January 2022 when the college would be re-opening.
10. He was normally paid on the 15th of every month. He was stunned when he did not receive his salary for January 2022 whereupon he called his supervisor, Maria O’Connor who undertook to check with HR and revert to him.
11. When she reverted to him he was startled when she told him that he had retired. She then sent him an email instructing him to return the office keys, laptop and college cell phone. She further told him not to report at the campus on 17 January 2022 but to come to her office instead.
12. He called his union representative from NEHAWU, Sthembiso Buthelezi, and asked him to accompany him when he went to see O’Connor. At the meeting O’Connor called the HR Manager, Sindisiwe Msomi whereupon he was told that he had applied for early retirement after which he was retired.
13. He did not receive the emails from O’Connor dated 9 December 2021, 10 December 2021 wishing him the best in the next phase of his life and about the completion of certain documents as well as the handover of college property (B1 page 57 and 58). The emails were sent after he had gone on leave including one which was sent on 13 January 2022 about the handover.
14. On 14 January 2022 he heard for the first time that he was no loner an employee of eThekwini TVET College after he received an email from O’Connor instructing him to return the College property. Between 9 – 10 December 2021 he was reachable on his cell phone, but he did not receive any call from O’Connor.
15. He stated that in his application form he had provided his private email address and his home address because he considered the information to be private and confidential. He did not receive any email or correspondence about his application before 14 January 2022.
16. His understanding was that he could still retract within 30 days but he did not receive the outcome of his application until he saw it for the first time in 2022 during the arbitration proceedings. He did not withdraw his application within 30 days from approval because he was unaware of the outcome of his application. Even if he received the outcome the Covid-19 lockdown regulations would have frustrated the process.
17. He testified that at one stage he notified the college about his intention to resign and he explained that he would not have done so if he already knew that he would be exiting the system anyway through early retirement. He did so because he had not received the outcome.
18. He never received the email from Sindisiwe Msomi, HR Manager, sharing the forms for him to sign and return nor did he receive the email from Majali dated February 2021, informing him that his withdrawal of the application was unsuccessful because he had a challenge with his laptop.
19. His laptop was unable to receive emails from the college email except if he connected using his cell phone to hotspot the laptop. When he did that numerous emails would come through and he would then focus on the important emails from his supervisor and the principal. Other emails would come through as read, which was strange.
20. He testified that the termination form is supposed to be signed by the department in cases of misconduct or death. He did not commit any misconduct nor did he die. No one had a right to fill the form and sign on his behalf.
21. He is not aware of the circular from the department which provides a different timeframe within which an applicant may withdraw his/her application for early retirement without a reduction of pension benefits. He asked to be reinstated to his former position with effect from 31 December 2021.
22. During cross-examination he disputed that he was given any information pack during the briefing session. He stated that when he was filling the application he was guided by the instructions on the form itself which he received from Enoch Mahlasela. He confirmed his signature on the declaration in which it is stated that once the application has been approved an applicant cannot retract the application (B2 page 35 par6).
23. He could not recall if Mahlasela called him about the delivery of the outcome of his application, but he stated that he did not receive it and apart from that he had provided contact details in the application form to be used for the purposes of his early retirement.
24. He denied that there were discussions between himself and Sindisiwe about his application. He could not remember when he started to experience problems with connectivity except that it took a year or more. He disputed that campus managers do not close and that he was allowed to go when the college closed because he was not returning in the following year. He stated that on the contrary that would have been a critical period to do a handover.
25. Sithembiso Buthelezi is the Applicant’s union representative from NEHAWU. He testified that after the Applicant had told him that he did not receive his salary, he wrote a letter to O’Connor and requested a meeting with her. In her response she said that they could have a meeting on 17 January 2022. The Applicant, Sindisiwe and himself were present and O’Connor chaired the meeting.
26. O’Connor told them that the Applicant applied for early retirement and hence he was not paid. She showed them emails in which they were communicating with the Applicant to which he did not respond. The emails were sent on 9 December 2021 after the college was closed and the college email was used.
27. O’Connor then told the Applicant to return the college property and further that his position had already been advertised. He stated that they considered this to be a dismissal, everything was done in a rush to get rid of the Applicant. They signed a termination form which was supposed to be signed by the Applicant without making any attempt to locate him or call him to a meeting.
28. During cross-examination he stated that he is not aware of the other emails which were sent to the Applicant other than those that were sent in December 2021 when the college was closed. When it was put to him that Sindisiwe Msomi had sent an email to the Applicant in November 2020 wherein she requested him to fill in the termination form and that he did not respond, he stated that they should have gone to his house or called him to a meeting.
29. Lungelo Ngcobo was an IT intern at Melbourne Campus. He testified that he was on a one-year contract from 2020 which was extended until 2021 due to Covid-19. He was responsible for technical issues at the campus.
30. He had an office next to the server room with a telephone which the staff would use to call him for technical assistance. The Applicant also called him on many occasions for technical assistance.
31. When he commenced work at the campus they did not have a system to log calls and before he left the campus they introduced an ELO system to log calls. He only attended the training when the system was introduced just before he left the campus.
32. His supervisor, Bomikazi, told him that the Applicant had a problem with his laptop. It was not using the internet cable which was connected to the college server. After doing tests they found that the problem was with the port in his laptop where the internet cable was supposed to be connected.
33. In this instance communication was not possible unless he connected wirelessly. If an email was sent he would not receive it because he was not connected. If they connected another laptop on the same network point, it would work.
34. He explained that although the emails were delivered it does not mean that they were read. The emails can appear as read when the technician connects to the staff’s email from the back office of the domain.
35. He stated that once he is connected emails would come in numbers, whether wirelessly or through the cable. It is possible for an email to appear as read although the recipient did not open it. The IT manager, Awonke Mamane, recommended for the laptop to be brought to the central office for repairs but this meant that the Applicant would lose information (data). They therefore requested for an external hard drive to save the data first.
36. When the hard drive came it was not working and the problem on the Applicant’s laptop was never fixed at least until he left the campus in the middle of 2021.
37. During cross-examination he stated that he did not open the Applicants’ emails and that he could not say if the Applicant opened them. He confirmed that the server can be used remotely by using IP address (Internet Protocol).

Respondent’s Evidence

38. Penelope Sindisiwe Msomi is the HR Manager. She testified that the Applicant retired after the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA) introduced a programme allowing employees between age 55 and 59 to retire from the public service without loss of benefits or penalties (B1 page 11).
39. Departments were permitted to adopt their own policies in line with the guidelines issued by DPSA. As a result, the Department of Higher Education and Training adopted its own policy and rolled out the programme.
40. She was responsible for managing the process and she invited qualifying employees to at least two briefing sessions in which information was shared. She also distributed application forms and the circular from the department.
41. The circular from their Department i.e. Dept of High Education and Training (B2) would definitely have been amongst the documents that were shared. The briefing included a presentation, question and answer sessions and distribution of information.
42. She explained that in the declaration it was stated that once the application has been approved by the final approval authority it cannot be retracted (B1 page 35 par 6). In the guidelines from DPSA an applicant would be allowed to withdraw his/her application if it is still within 30 calendar days from the date of approval (B1 page 22 par 7).
43. She stated that in spite of the different dates their circular is final and it goes with the application form and this was covered during the briefing sessions.
44. She testified that in his application for early retirement, the Applicant stated in his motivation as per the minimum requirements set out in par 2.3.2 at page 18 of bundle B1, that he has proudly served the Department of Education for the past 19 years.
45. He feels that his contribution as a campus manager has reached its limit. Changes in the curriculum and working conditions has made it difficult to adapt and the need for young blood with new ideas to move the sector forward has come.
46. He has come to the decision to accept the early retirement offer. There are many medicals (e.g. cholesterol which cannot improve on the stressful environment) and safety reasons (e.g. unrest) that have pushed him to make the decision (B1 page 34).
47. She stated that DPSA issued a generic template but each department would customise their own processes (B1 page 18 par 2.3). She was part of the recipients of the email dated 30 January 2020 in which Nadia Williams confirmed that all applications for early retirement had been approved.
48. The period for the withdrawal in respect of the Applicant would have expired after 30 Days from 10 July 2019 the date of the application, on 9 August 2019 in terms of the circular after which the application could not be retracted. The date stamp on the outcome of the application indicates that it was delivered to the Applicant on 11 Mary 2020.
49. She communicated with the Applicant over the phone and via emails and also verbally face to face about his application and the termination form. On 30 November 2020 she sent him an email after their discussion during the day in which she requested him to sign the termination form. During their discussion before she sent the email, he did not indicate that he was not receiving emails.
50. On 9 February 2021 Majali had sent an email to the Applicant advising him that the approval of his application stands and that his application cannot be withdrawn (B1 page 54). The Applicant knew that his application was approved.
51. Majali signed the termination form after Head Office advised that they could sign. It was an administrative form to avoid the Applicant getting paid after he exited the system. It does not constitute a dismissal.
52. During cross-examination, when it was put to her that the Applicant did not receive the policy from DPSA (B1 page 11 – 31) and that he saw the department’s circular (B2) for the first time in 2026 at arbitration. She stated that she did not know by heart, but the circular and the application form would have been amongst the documents. She conceded that she cannot prove that he took any document on the day.
53. She admitted that in the application form it is stated that the form must be read after reading the policy from DPSA, and that in the form no mention is made about other documents. She was not sure who is the final approval authority but she stated that it would possiblly be the Minister.
54. She did not dispute that according to the DPSA policy the Applicant could withdraw his application 30 days after it had been approved by the EA (Executive Authority), but he could not withdraw after NT (National Treasury) had approved the application.
55. She conceded that there are two conflicting policy positions but she re-iterated that she did mention in the briefing sessions what the policy adapted by the department say in terms of the applicable time frame.
56. She conceded that without proof that the outcome of the application reached the Applicant, she is presuming that it reached him. She confirmed that the Applicant did not have a say when the termination letter was signed on his behalf.
57. Enoch Mahlasela is the HR Admin Clerk. He testified that he delivered the outcome of the Applicant’s application to his campus but he was not there. He spoke to Ms. Hlongwa, his secretary. He called the Applicant on his phone in the presence of Ms. Hlongwa and when he told him that he was there to deliver the letter, he said that he could leave it with Ms. Hlongwa who made a copy for him.
58. He stated that he put the date stamp on the letter. The letter is similar to the one contained at page 50 of volume 2 but the latter does not have a date stamp. He could not recall why the other letter did not have a date stamp.
59. During cross-examination he stated that he stamped the letter and Ms Hlongwa signed for it. He disputed that the letter at page 50 of bundler B1 is not the letter he left but a copy of the letter he left. He could not recall if the stamp was invisible as it is appearing on the letter. He stated that the stamp had a red handle and black ink.
60. He had carried the stamp with him to the campus. He could not recall how many copies of the letter he had with him on the day. He stated that Ms. Hlongwa’s signature on the letter look original to him. He could not say where the letter came from for it to be in the bundle. He did not go to his physical address to deliver the letter because it was during working hours.
61. Slindile Ntokozo Hlongwa is the Skills Clerk who was also a PA and performed the Applicant’s personal assistance duties. She testified that she received the letter which was delivered to the campus by Enoch Mahlasela when Mahlasela came, the Applicant had not yet arrived at the office.
62. Mahlasela then said to her that he would call him after which he told her that the Applicant said that he could leave the letter with her. She acknowledged receipt of the letter and subsequently gave it to the Applicant on the same day when he arrived at the office.
63. During cross-examination she stated that the letter was in an envelope and she did not open it. Mahlasela gave her something to sign but she could not remember if he was carrying the document separately or he took it out of the envelope. She disputed that it was her signature which was appended on the document.
64. Evert Nkosinathi Cele is acting IT Manager. He testified that the email used by the Applicant did not show any record of a call log pertaining to his laptop. Emails would not appear as read without being opened just because the user used a cell phone for internet connection.
65. Hotspoting via a cell phone or using a land cable from the college or any form of wireless connection does not change the content that one is accessing.
66. He explained that it is possible for IT to open the email address without the consent of the user if there is an official communication from the user’s supervisor regarding information that may be required but the user is unreachable at the time.
67. Another instance would be if there is a malicious activity i.e. the user’s email is sending viruses or spams, then IT can immediately do whatever is necessary to contain the situation. Delivery of an email does not necessarily mean that it was read.
68. During cross-examination he stated that he received a request through the office of Ms. Kweyama to look for information relating to the case. He was asked to look for communication between the Applicant and service desk about him not being able to access emails.
69. He stated that it is not abnormal for a user to call a technician for assistance but one would expect for such a persisting problem to be reported in writing. He did not find a record of the external hard drive supplied by central office to deal with the problem. He was looking at the college email used by the Applicant.
70. Nokuthula Pam Majali is the Deputy Principal, Corporate Serves. She testified that the Applicant exited the system in December 2021 after he applied for early retirement which was approved. Nadia Williams had sent an email on 30 January 2020 confirming that all applications had been approved (B1 page 39). She was copied on the email.
71. The Applicant was informed and there were letters sent to him and she also spoke to him personally. There was also communication from HR to him to fill in and return certain forms which he did not return. It was also mentioned in one management meeting that he was attending for the last time.
72. She stated that she further sent an email to him confirming that he could not withdraw the application and the email was in response to his email about an intention to resign. (B1 page 54). He was informed about the approval of his application for early retirement.
73. She testified that HR used the college email because he did not specify that communication should be through his personal email. Apart from that, emails are sent through laptops and college cell phones. The termination form was signed to ensure that he did not continue to get paid after he exited the system.
74. He was not dismissed. he form was signed so that they do not do a salary overpayment. In terms of the two conflicting policies, she stated that the departmental one is the relevant.
75. She explained that there was not a day that the campus manager would not communicate with HR and Central Office and they had meetings and not just one. He is an open person and there was no bad relationship between them but he never said anything about his laptop and about not receiving emails.
76. During cross-examination she admitted that signing the form constituted administrative action and that the form anticipates that it would be signed by the Applicant and further that signing ended the benefit for him to earn a salary. She stated that she had a responsibility to stop his salary, a letter of approval of early retirement would have been attached to the form.
77. She stated that in his email when he wanted to withdraw the application, he said ‘thank you for considering my application’ i.e application for early retirement, which mean that he received the outcome of his application. She re-iterated that because the letter reached his secretary, it reached him and he was not curious and called Mahlasela.
78. She conceded that the departmental circular was not in the bundle in 2022 until 2026 but she disputed that it was not available. When she was asked when the college principal signed the outcome of application, she stated that it is not dated (B1 page 50).
79. Maria O’Conor is the deputy principal, academic services. She testified that after the early retirement package was introduced in 2019 the Applicant called her and told her that he had applied. She was his direct supervisor.
80. She was aware that his application had been approved and there would be a lot of communication through HR. She also called him when he was not responding to a request to file certain documents and he said its fine and when she told him that the pension office would not be able to process anything without the documents, he said that he’s fine.
81. She stated that the Applicant left on 8 December 2021 when the college closed. There is a closing time for students, educators and lecturers and a different closing time for support staff. Managers are considered as part of support staff.
82. They were supposed to close on 10 December 2021 until 13 January 2022. They could have called him back but because he was exiting the system they decided to leave it. Emails are also accessible on the phone and he still had the college cell phone with him. She sent an email requesting him to meet with her for an exit interview but he did not show up (B1 page 60).
83. Dring cross-examination she stated that when he left on 8 December 2021 she was of the view that he was exiting the system. When he did not respond to her emails on 9 and 10 December 2021, she thought he was happy to exit, had done his time and needed no further responsibilities. When she was asked if the Applicant was unavailable, she stated that he did not respond.

Closing Arguments
Applicants’ Arguments

84. Lwazi argued that the Applicant’s contention is that the signing of the termination of service form without him having been given an opportunity to be heard before the form was signed by Pam Nokuthula Majali, the Deputy Principal, was substantively and procedurally unfair as such amounted to unfair dismissal.
85. There is no evidence on the balance of probabilities that the letter of approval was received by the Applicant at any point. The Respondent has always harboured the mistaken view that the Applicant had received it when the Applicant believes that the application had never been approved.
86. The Applicant seeks reinstatement from the date of termination which is 13 December 2021, to his position as campus manager or equivalent, including backpay of his salary from the date of stopping the salary to the date of reinstatement.

Respondents’ Arguments

87. Sakhile argued that the Respondent did not initiate the termination of the contract of employment of the applicant. The filling and signing of the termination of service form (DHET/HRMA/003(a)) was for the completion of the process which was initiated by the applicant himself.
88. The Respondent was faced with a situation of resisting employee who lacked co-operation and the non-filling of the form was going to prejudice the administration of the Respondent in that the Applicant would benefit unduly.
89. The Applicant’s testimony that it was for the first time on 14 January 2022 to hear that he had retired or to hear about the outcome of his application for early retirement without reduction of pension benefits, was a blatant lie.
90. The correct deduction and conclusion based on the evidence presented is that the Applicant received the emails directed to him either through his laptop or cellphone and that he received the outcome of his application. He argued that the Applicant failed dismally to establish the existence of dismissal and asked for the case to be dismissed.

Analysis of evidence and arguments

91. In terms of section 186(1)(a) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (LRA), as amended, dismissal means that an employer has terminated employment with or without notice. Section 192(1) of the Act provides that the employee must establish the existence of the dismissal.
92. In the present case the Respondent disputed that the Applicant was dismissed. Its version was that the Applicant retired following the approval of his application for early retirement without penalisation of pension benefits.
93. The Applicant’s version was that although he filed the application for early retirement, he did not receive the outcome of his application and that at a certain stage he notified the Respondent of his intention to withdraw the application.

He contended that he did not receive the emails which are said to have been sent by the Respondent about the developments in his application because he had a problem with his laptop.

94. It is common cause that the programme was introduced by the Department of Public Service and Administration in terms of section 16(6) of the Public Service Act of 1994. It is also common cause that in terms of the policy from DPSA, different departments may customise their own processes in line with the guidelines provided in the DPSA policy and that the management plans may differ logistically between department due to differing contextual factors.
95. It is further common cause that the policy from DPSA made provision for the withdrawal of the application if it is within 30 calendar days from the date of approval. During the arbitration proceedings a different policy was presented by the Respondent which provides a different time frame within which an application could be withdrawn.
96. The Respondent’s evidence was that pursuant to the DPSA policy, it customised its own processes and adopted its own policy which provides that once an application has been approved by the final approval authority, it cannot be retracted for early retirement. The Applicant denied any knowledge or awareness of this policy.
97. The Respondent led the evidence of Sindiswe Msomi (HR Manager), Nokuthula Majali (Deputy Principal) and Mari O’Connor (Deputy Principal, Academic services who testified that there were communications which were sent to the Applicant about progress of his application for early retirement.
98. The question to be answered is whether the Applicant was dismissed or he retired. The evidence established that whereas the departmental circular (Policy) was discovered late and whereas there is no proof that it was given to the Applicant, in the declaration which was signed by the Applicant, it is stated that once the application has been approved, it cannot be retracted.
99. The time frame in the declaration is consistent with the time frame which is in the departmental policy/circular. The evidence further established that there were communications from the Respondent to the Applicant via emails about his application but he did not respond to any of the emails that were sent to him.
100. The evidence also established that the Applicant, as Campus Manager, would have constant engagement with HR and the central office in the form of meetings about various issues pertaining to the management and administration of the college. The evidence further established that HR and the Applicants’ Supervisor were not aware of the fact that the Applicant was experiencing problems with his laptop because it was not reported to them.
101. The evidence also established that the outcome of his application was delivered by Enock Mahlasela to the Campus and given to Slindile Hlongwa and that at some stage the Applicant indicated that he would like to withdraw his application.
102. I accept the Respondent’s version in so far as it relates to the emails. According to the Respondent’s version, emails are received through a laptop or cell phones. If the Applicant had such a serious issue with his laptop HR and his supervisor ought to have been made aware. Alternatively, he would have received emails via his cell phone.
103. Enoch Mahlasela testified that he personally delivered the outcome of the application and Slindile Hlongwa testified that she would have given it to the Applicant as she would normally do after receiving something on his behalf in his absence.
104. It is my finding that the Applicant was most probably aware of the communication about his application. It was not his evidence that apart from the emails about his application he also did not receive emails about certain meetings he did not attend because he was not aware due to the problem with his laptop.
105. He did not dispute that it was mentioned in one of the management meetings that he was attending for the last time nor did he approach HR or his supervisor to find out what this was about.
106. In my view and based on the evidence presented the Applicant probably changed his mind about his application for early retirement. Otherwise, he would have followed up with HR or his Supervisor and at the same time indicated that he was struggling with his laptop.
107. My view is supported by the fact that he indeed at some stage decided to retract the application but unfortunately he was told that he could no longer do so based on the time frame stipulated in the departmental circular. On 8 December 2021 he could or should have at least asked for feedback from HR or his Supervisor but he did not do so.
108. The Respondent then concluded that he was just happy to leave but because he had not filled in and returned the pension withdrawal forms as well as the signed termination form, they decided to do so on his behalf following an advice from Head Office. The form may be filled in and signed by either the employee or the employer in certain instances. In this instance they ticked that he retired, not that he died or committed a misconduct.
109. It is therefore my finding an a balance of probabilities that the Respondent’s version is more probable than that of the Applicant. I find no basis on which it can be said that there was a dismissal when the process of early retirement was initiated by the Applicant himself and was approved by the Respondent
110. I therefore make the following award; Award
111. The Applicant did not establish the existence of an unfair dismissal.
112. The application is hereby dismissed.
113. I make no order as to costs.

P Cele: ELRC Commission