17 November 2025 -ELRC1324-24/25LP



Commissioner: Grace Mafa-Chali
Case Number: ELRC1324-24/25LP
Date of Award: 14 November 2025

In the arbitration between:

Ngakane Harris Debeila Applicant
And

Limpopo Department of Education Respondent

THE DETAILS OF THE HEARING AND REPRESENTATION

The dispute was scheduled for arbitration as an unfair labour practice in terms of Section 186(2)(a) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995, as amended (the LRA) for housing allowance benefit, under the auspices of the Education Labour Relations Council.
The matter was heard on 21 October 2025 and finalized on 27 October 2025, at Department of Education Limpopo, Corner Hospital and Hans van Rensburg Street, Polokwane, Limpopo Province.
The Applicant was in attendance and legally represented by Ms Rorisang Raphadu, an attorney of PC Mogale Attorneys Inc.
The Respondent was represented by Ms Nthabiseng Rasebotsa, Respondent’s Labour Relations Official.
At the end of the proceedings, both parties requested to submit written closing arguments, and they were directed to do their submissions by the latest 03 November 2025, and both parties have obliged. I have taken into consideration the parties’ arguments in my findings and analysis hereunder.
The proceedings were digitally and manually recorded, and there were no interpretation services required.
Both parties used the Respondent’s Bundle of documents marked Bundles R, R1 and R2.

ISSUES TO BE DECIDED

I must determine whether or not the Respondent committed an unfair labour practice towards the Applicant in terms of Section 186 (2)(a) of the LRA relating to a benefit of housing allowance.
If so, to determine the appropriate relief.

BACKGROUND TO THE DISPUTE

The Applicant was employed by the Respondent as CS1 Educator in January 1989 at Kgalatlou Secondary School and later moved to Tshehlwaneng Secondary School in January 2013 and moved to Tsoga O Itirele Special School in July 2020.
It is common cause that during 2015 and 2016, the Respondent provided a housing allowance to qualifying employees in terms of the Determination and Directive on Housing Allowance for Employees in the Public Service-September 2018, read with PSCBC Resolution 7 of 2015, which provides for a framework agreement for the establishment of a government employees housing scheme (GEHS).
It is also common cause that the applicant had been receiving a housing allowance since April 2001, it was terminated by the Respondent in terms of the Department Public Service and Administration (DPSA) Directive issued by the Director General on 01 December 2015.
It is evident that since during 2016, qualifying employees of the Respondent received housing allowance of R900.00 per month including the Applicant, and that the Applicant’s housing allowance was terminated in March 2016.
The Applicant re-applied for the housing allowance in March 2024, and it was approved the same month, and since then he has been receiving the monthly housing allowance of R1 200.00 per month which was later increased to R1 691.38 per month.
The Applicant submitted that the Respondent owes him payment of the housing allowance from April 2016 to March 2024, but due to the Prescription Act 68 of 1969, he eventually claimed the housing allowance in the amount of R41 705.55 retrospectively on the basis that he claimed he was not aware of the DPSA Directive to reapply for the housing allowance.
The Respondent submitted that the DPSA Directive was brought to the attention of all the employees of the Respondent including all educators and their union representatives who are signatories to the PSCBC Resolution 7 of 2015, to reapply for the housing allowance and that it was mandatory for all employees who are home-owners and eligible for the housing allowance to submit the signed application form with necessary documents to enable HR of the Respondent to create a new Persal code. The Respondent further submitted that DPSA directed that the required application forms with the supporting documents be submitted before 31 January 2016, and as the Applicant did not reapply, his housing allowance was terminated in March 2016, until he reapplied in March 2024. The Respondent disputed the Applicant’s claim that it committed an unfair labour practice by terminating his housing allowance in March 2016 without notifying him or communicating with him to make him aware of the DPSA Directive.

SURVEY OF PARTIES’S EVIDENCE

Applicant’s Evidence
Ngakane Harris Debeila testified under oath as follows:

He was employed by the Respondent as a CS1 Educator since January 1989. He first applied for a housing allowance in April 2001, with his ID copy, pay slip and housing documents. At that time, he received R500.00 per month for housing allowance, which increased to R900.00 around 2009, and in 2016 increased to R1 200.00.
There was no prior communication which he received for the housing allowance increase as it was agreed at the bargaining chamber with the ELRC and it was automatically increased.
Early February 2024, he went to Nedbank Home loans and discovered that he was still owing a lot of money on his home loan. He then checked his pay slips at Head Office of the Respondent, and he discovered that from March 2016 there was no housing allowance paid to him since it was stopped. He was advised to reapply for the housing allowance, but his other colleagues, none of them reapplied but their housing allowance was automatically increased to R1 200.00 without any reapplications. He was the only one required to reapply. He then went to Scorpions to seek legal advice on the matter.
When he went to the district offices, he was told that a certain Mr Mathabatha forgot to upgrade his housing allowance to R1 200.00, but upgraded for other educators and that official has since retired.
Whenever there is a circular, Mr Tladi would pick it up from the circuit for the Principal, and the Principal would call the educators to the boardroom and explain the contents of the circular to them. It was for the first time he saw the circular on Page 23-24 of Bundle R dated 01 December 2015. It was never discussed with them at school by the Principal.
As the Respondent never notified him of the circular, he prayed that the Respondent pay him R41 705.55 which is the housing allowance in arrears as a form of compensation.

Seete David Tladi testified under oath as follows:

He started working for the Respondent as an Educator since 01 February 1994 to date, at Tshehlwaneng Secondary School in Sekhukhune East District. He started to work with the Applicant from 01 January 2013 until July 2020.
He received a housing allowance every month from 2010, and every year, there is an increase of the housing allowance which happens automatically on their pay slips. He does not apply for the annual increase of the housing allowance.
He has never seen the document on Page 23-24 of Bundle R. The document was never communicated to him by the Respondent. Whenever there is a circular by the Respondent. it is distributed to the educators at the school. In the past the Principal used to collect them from the district office and circulate them to educators.
He noted Bundle R1, which is a record of his housing allowance. In April 2016, the housing allowance was R900.00 per month and it was later increased to R1 200.00.
He has never reapplied for his housing allowance in 2016, as it was annually increased from R1 200.00 to R 1 900.00. He was not aware that his housing allowance was terminated in March 2016, as there was no prior notice given by the Respondent for such termination. It came as a surprise to him as he saw it on his pay slip. He assumed that the Respondent was doing something to upgrade his allowance from R900.00 to R1 200.00 at that time of termination of his housing allowance. The Applicant closed his case
The Respondent’s Evidence
Madimetja Francina Matlwa testified under oath as follows;
She is the Assistant Director: Conditions of Service, HR Corporate Services. She is head of the sections and responsible for communications of circulars to the relevant employees, management of housing allowance, leaves, terminations, human resources performance assessments and management of financial disclosures.
Around December 2015, the Respondent received a circular from DPSA issued by the Minister of the Department of Public Service Administration regarding the housing allowance, to phase out the old persal code to the new code.
The communication was sent to national and provincial departments. They drafted a covering letter, and shared it with all educators, through the circuit office, circuit clerks and managers; and to the principals to share with the educators.
Their role as HR was to receive the applications in terms of the provisions of the circular from the employees, verify supporting information with the housing allowance application, the sworn affidavit, tittle deed or bond statement, and those living in rural areas, verify their ID copy of permission to occupy.
For those who submitted the necessary documents, HR terminated and reinstated the housing allowance, terminated the old code and activated the new one. If HR is non-complaint with the circulars and directives, it becomes an audit query. Some educators complied and reapplied, and others did not reapply. Those who did not reapply, they terminated their housing allowance. For those who reapplied, they took the application forms for the Director to approve before implementing the new persal code on the system.
They never received a new application for housing allowance from the Applicant and his housing allowance was terminated, like some of his colleagues at Tshehlwaneng School who did not reapply. Those who complied with the circular, their housing allowance was never terminated.
When she checked in the system, she observed that Mrs Debeila was working at Department of Traditional affairs, and she might have applied for housing allowance. If both spouses worked for government department, both of them could not be allowed to get the housing allowances, until 2019, when it was changed in terms of Resolution 1 of 2018, which allowed delinking and both spouses to apply for housing allowance from levels 1 to 5 employees in 2018, and later levels 6 to level 7 employees, were also allowed to delink their housing allowance from 01 September 2019.
The Applicant never reapplied for housing allowance when he was transferred to Capricorn district, until it was terminated. He reapplied in 2024. Housing allowance cannot be backdated. Clause 4 on Page 23 of Bundle R, in the DPSA circular indicates that the new persal code was to be created on the system and for those who were not in compliance, housing allowance was terminated by 31 January 2024.
Almost 2000 educators and employees of the Respondent applied for the new housing allowance. There were some of the Applicant’s colleagues who did not reapply, and their housing allowance was also terminated, like the Applicant’s. He was not the only one whose housing allowance was terminated.
Examples are Mr Tladi and Mr Lekwana as in Bundle R1 and R2, whose housing allowance was also terminated. Mr Tladi ‘s housing allowance was also terminated on 29 February 2016, and reinstated on 01 April 2016, which meant Mr Tladi submitted his new application for housing allowance, and he received R1 200.00 housing allowance per month, increased from R900.00 with the new persal code of 0664. The code was not programmatically implemented by National Treasury but was to be implemented by HR upon receipt of new housing allowance applications.
From 01 July 2025, the housing allowance was programmatically implemented by National Treasury and increased to R1 973.00 and there was no need for employees to submit new housing allowance application forms. Only new employees would complete those forms and the housing allowance will be implemented in the same month of the application.
The applicant’s housing allowance has nothing to do with Nedbank. Housing allowance is a benefit, and the allowance goes straight into the employee’s bank account not to the financial institution holding the bond. It is the employee who would do a stop order on his salary so that the housing allowance amount or any amount can be deducted from his salary to the financial institution to pay the bond. The bond cannot be in arrears due to non-payment of housing allowance by the Respondent.
Housing allowance cannot be implemented without an application form and supporting documents, as well as the approval of the Manager of the section, as on Page 13 of Bundle R. The Applicant submitted his housing allowance application on 11 March 2024, with copy of his ID and affidavit. According to the policy the employee must receive housing allowance a month after the application, and payment is not backdated.
Resolution 7 of 2015 was signed by the union representatives and the employer. SADTU signed on 27 March 2015. Thereafter, it is the union’s responsibility to inform its members of the contents of the resolution. They also conduct workshops with the schools to educate the educators and other employees. The Applicant also failed to check his pay slips if housing allowances were paid every month.
The same happened to Mr Lekwana. His housing allowance was terminated on 29 February 2016, and at that time he was receiving R900.00 per month. It was reinstated on 01 April 2016, when he complied, and he then started to receive the new housing allowance of R1 200.00per month. His information on dates is similar to that of his colleague Mr Tladi, as it depends when HR receives the documents. The documents may have been submitted the same month. It’s just a coincidence of the dates there is nothing wrong with it.
Respondent closed its case.

ANALYSIS OF PARTIES’ EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS

I have considered the relevant evidence and arguments presented by both parties without necessarily repeating them verbatim.
In terms of section 186(2) (a) of the LRA, “‘Unfair Labour Practice’ means any unfair act or omission that arises between an employer and an employee involving- an unfair conduct by the employer relating to promotion, demotion, probation (excluding disputes about dismissals for reasons relating to probation) or training of an employee or relating to provision of benefits to an employee.”
It was a common cause issue that the Applicant’s dispute related to provision of benefits in the form of a housing allowance.
The onus rested on the Applicant to prove that the Respondent committed an unfair labour practice when it terminated his housing allowance in April 2016.
It was also a common cause issue that the Applicant reapplied for the housing allowance in March 2024 and the Respondent started paying him the housing allowance in April 2024.
DPSA issued a directive to all Heads of National and Provincial Departments and Provincial Administrators on 01 December 2015 giving effect to the adjustment in terms of Clause 4.5.2 of the PSCBC Resolution 7 of 2015 increasing the housing allowance for all employees who are home-owners and eligible for the housing allowance to an increased an amount of R1 200.00 per month effective 01 July 2015.The Respondent led undisputed evidence that the Applicant was also a member of SADTU at the time and still is, and SADTU is one of the signatory unions of Resolution 7 of 2018, and signed the resolution on 27 May 2015; and that the union has also the responsibility to inform their members about the circulars and directives.
However, the DPSA Directive instructed that it was mandatory that the employees must submit an signed completed application form titled GEHS Employee Enrolment: Housing for home-owners together with proof that the home-owner occupies the house concerned. Clause 7.1 of the DPSA Directive instructed all National and Provincial departments and Provincial Administrators to bring the contents of the circular to all employees to enable them to submit the required application by the latest 31 January 2016, and for HR to submit the completed name-list to the DPSA before 31 March 2016.
Clause 4.1.4 of PSCBC Resolution 7 of 2015 provides that all employees who wish to use the services through the GEHS shall be required to enroll with the GEHS.
The Applicant presented his own oral evidence supported by documentary evidence and called one witness Mr Tladi who is his former colleague of Tshehlwaneng Secondary School.
The Respondent led the evidence of one witness Ms Matlwa, who also supported her evidence with documentary evidence.
According to the Applicant’s testimony, the Respondent should have automatically increased payment of his housing allowance from R900.00 to R1 200.00 per month, without him making a new application as it did for his other colleagues. The Applicant also argued that the DPSA Directive of 01 December 2015 was never brought to his attention by the Respondent; and he saw it for the first time at the arbitration proceedings.
The Applicant testified that when he visited the circuit office to make enquiries about termination of his housing allowance, he was advised that a certain official of the Respondent was responsible to automatically increase the payment of his housing allowance as he has done for all other employees; and that he must have forgotten to increase his on the payroll system. I indicated to the Applicant that this piece of evidence I will reject as it is hearsay evidence and inadmissible in terms of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act 45 of 1988, unless the said officials are called by the Applicant to come and corroborate the Applicant’s evidence in that regard. The Applicant has not called those officials as witnesses and no reason was given for such failure. I have therefore rejected this evidence as inadmissible because it is hearsay and does not fall within any of the listed exclusions for admission of hearsay evidence.
The Applicant called Mr Tladi as his witness, who testified that he had been receiving a housing allowance since 2010, which was annually increased, and he has never been informed of the DPSA Directive of 01 December 2015 and never reapplied for his housing allowance; and his housing allowance was not terminated by the Respondent. Mr Tladi’s testimony was that all the circulars from the circuit office are normally distributed to all the educators by the Principal, but the DPSA Directive was never brought to his attention at the school, and he also saw it for the first time in the arbitration proceeding.
On the other hand, the Respondent’s version by its witness, Ms Matlwa was that the DPSA Directive dated 01 December 2015 was brought to the attention of all employees and educators of the Respondent, at the circuit office to the clerks and officials, managers, Principals through the covering letter and workshops conducted by the HR unit to all schools in the district.
Ms Matlwa also testified that the Principals distribute all circulars to the educators at the schools and as result some educators including the Applicant’s colleagues at the same school complied with the DPSA directive, submitted their re-applications with supporting documents, which HR processed by creating a new persal code and increased their housing allowance from R900 to R1 200 00 per month.
I am not convinced by the Applicant’s version that the Respondent should have automatically updated his housing allowance from R900.00 to R1 200.00 in the light of the DPSA circular. As the Applicant and his witness Mr Tladi denied that the DPSA Directive was ever communicated to them by the Principal like other circulars, the Applicant had to discharge the evidentiary burden to prove that because the Respondent challenged this evidence vehemently.
The Applicant did not call the Principal as a witness to explain what happened to this DPSA Directive or corroborate his evidence that it was not brought to their attention. The Applicant has also not made a subpoena of the communication register book held at school in which he and his witness Mr Tladi alleged educators signed as their evidence that the DPSA Directive was never brought to their attention. Once the Applicant has discharged that evidentiary burden in this regard, it would then shift to the Respondent to prove otherwise.
The Applicant argued that the Respondent has not provided evidence of the communication of the DPSA Directive sent to the Applicant’s school in any manner. This nature of such proof can only be required of the Respondent once the Applicant has discharged his evidentiary burden but I find that in this case the Applicant has not, and therefore there is no tangible evidence for the Respondent to rebut.
Mr Tladi’s testimony was that his housing allowance was never terminated and he was not required to reapply. However, the documentary evidence showed the contrary that his housing allowance was also terminated like the one of his other colleague Mr Lekwana were on 29 February 2016 and reinstated on 01 April 20216.
I am satisfied with the evidence of Ms Matlwa which was uncontested regarding the process that was followed to comply with the DPSA directive and that the system could only be adjusted once the reapplication forms and the supporting documents were submitted by home owners and approved by the Director.
The payslips of the Applicant, Mr Tladi and Mr Lekwana also showed the changes to the new codes as indicated in the DPSA Directive. It is therefore my considered view that it would have been impossible for the Respondent to automatically effect the persal code changes and do the housing allowance adjustments without the required source documents. It can only be logical that Mr Tladi and Mr Lekwana’s housing allowance were reinstated due to them submitting their applications and on the same logic dictates that the Respondent could not effect adjustments to the Applicant ‘s housing allowance because he failed to comply with the DPSA Directive to reapply for his housing allowance.
According to his own testimony, the Applicant did not check that the housing allowance was terminated since 2016 until March 2024. Although there is evidence presented by Ms Matlwa that she observed on the system that the Applicant’s wife was also receiving the housing allowance as an employee of the Department of Traditional Affairs, because of the delinking the policy applicable to spouses, such evidence has no impact on the Applicant’s claim. Ms Matlwa also presented evidence that the policy delinking spouses on housing allowance was effective 2018 and 2019. It is therefore consequently my finding that the Applicant was made aware of the DPSA Directive but failed to reapply for his housing allowance.
My close scrutiny of the DPSA Directive has not expressly stipulated that for those home owners who fail to comply with the DPSA Directive, their housing allowance must be terminated. The Directive ‘s purpose in paragraph 2 was to give effect to the housing adjustments in terms of the provisions of Clause 4.5.2 of the PSCBC Resolution 7 of 2015 which reads as follows: “The amount of the housing allowance paid to eligible employees shall increase to R1 200 (one thousand and two hundred rand) per month.” It is therefore unclear from the Respondent’s version what the basis was for the Respondent to terminate the R900.00 housing allowance for those employees who did not comply with the DPSA Directive, as there is no specific directive to terminate the housing allowance in cases of non-compliance to complete the new application forms for housing allowance. The Directive’s emphasis is the implementation of the adjusted R1 200.00 and guides how HR must implement the adjustments.
What is clear is that a new persal code was to be created for the purpose of the housing adjustment to enable HR to capture the amended housing allowance of R1200.00 per month and this adjustment was only to be made after the submission of the required documents in paragraphs 4.1. and 4.2 of the Directive.
It is therefore my conclusion that without such express provision in the Directive or any other legislative framework, prescript or policy to terminate the R900.00 housing allowance for those home owners who did not reapply, the Respondent’s conduct was unreasonable and unfair, hence the anomaly was corrected by the provisions of Clause 2.2.2.2 of the Determination Directive on Housing Allowance for Public Services of September 2018 which provides as follows: “ Employees in service prior to 27 May 2015 who were receipts of the Housing Allowance as home-owners but failed to complete the new Housing Allowance application for home-owners form (Annexure H) shall continue to receive R900 housing allowance without any adjustments to their housing allowance or savings.”
The wording of this clause is very clear, and when read with the DPSA directive it now gives clarity for those employees like the Applicant who did not reapply for housing allowance, that they will therefore not receive the adjusted R1 200.00. housing allowance but continue to receive R900.00 if employed prior to 27 May 2015. This clause was not in the DPSA Directive of 01 December 2015, and it has only been introduced in September 2018 Determination. The purposive interpretation of the clause is that the employees must not forfeit their housing allowance benefit but rather not benefit from the adjusted housing allowance of R1 200.00 due to their non-compliance to reapply. There is also no clause in the Determination that talks to the period between 31 March 2016 in the DPSA Directive until September 2018 in that regard. The reasonable conclusion would be that the employees would still continue to receive the R900.00 housing allowance form April 2016 and not the adjusted R1 200.00 with backpay from to 01 July 2015 as in paragraph 7.3 of the Directive.
It is therefore my finding that besides the fact that the Applicant was aware of the DPSA Directive and failed to comply with it until March 2024, in interpreting and applying the clause 2.2.2.2 in the Determination, as it is common cause that the Applicant was in service prior to 27 May 2015, was a recipient of the housing allowance as home-owner and failed to complete the new housing allowance application for homeowners, he would therefore still be entitled to continue to receive the R900 00. housing allowance per month, and this would have been since 01 April 2016.
The challenge with the Applicant’s entitlement now arises with the application of prescription to his claim in terms of the Prescription Act 68 of 1969. The Applicant’s claim arose in April 2016 when his housing allowance of R900 00 was terminated. He lodged his dispute in August 2024. In applying the 3 years’ prescription to his claim, the Applicant would only be entitled to the housing allowance that is still within the 3 years from August 2021 to August 2024, in exclusion of the prescribed period.
The Applicant’s competent claim will therefore be from August 2021 to March 2024 at R900.00 per month, as his housing allowance was reinstated in April 2024, calculated at 32 months which equals R28 800.00.
It is my finding is that the Applicant has succeeded to discharge his onus of proof on a balance of probabilities that the Respondent committed an unfair labour practice relating to benefits as envisaged by section 186(2)(a) of the LRA by failing to continue to pay him the R900 00 housing allowance per month as provided in Clause 2.2.2.2 of the Determination Directive on Housing Allowance for Public Services of September 2018.
I will therefore award the Applicant an amount of R28 800.00 for arrears housing allowance.

AWARD

I find that the Respondent, the Limpopo Department of Education, has committed an unfair labour practice towards the Applicant, Ngakane Harris Debeila, by failing to continue to pay him the R900.00 housing allowance.
The Respondent is ordered to pay the Applicant an amount of R28 800.00 by not later than 15 December 2025.
The amount shall earn interest in terms of Section 143 (2) of the LRA at the prescribed rate from the date of payment if it remains unpaid