IN THE EDUCATION LABOUR RELATIONS COUNCIL
Commissioner: MN Masetla
Case number: ELRC1243-24/25LP
Date of the award: 10 June 2025

In the matter between:
SADTU obo Mokadze Johannes Khazamula Applicant
And
Department of Education – Limpopo Respondent

ARBITRATION AWARD

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUNDTO THE RULING

1. This is an award in the arbitration between Mokadze Johannes Khazamula, the applicant and the Department of Education Limpopo, the respondent.
2. The arbitration process was held under the auspices of the Education Labour Relations Council (ELRC) in terms of section 191 (5) (a) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 as amended (“the Act”) and the award is issued in terms of section 138 (7) of the Act.
3. The arbitration process was concluded on 22 May 2025 at Corner Hospital and Hans van Rensburg Street, Polokwane, being the respondent’s premises.
4. The applicant was present and represented by SADTU official, Mr Hezekiel Madire.
5. The respondent was represented by Mr Nyathela N.E, Deputy Director, Labour Relations.

ISSUES TO BE DECIDED

6. I have to determine whether the respondent’s decision not to pay the applicant a pay progression for the financial year 2023-2024 amounts to an unfair labour practice or not, and;
7. Whether the respondent was inconsistent when the pay progression was paid to four of his colleagues.
8. Dependent thereon, to order appropriate relief.

BACKGROUND TO THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE

9. In January 2025, the applicant, assisted by his union SADTU, referred an unfair labour practice dispute relating to benefits, namely non-payment of 2023-2024 pay progression to the ELRC.
10. A conciliation of the dispute took place on 25 January 2025. The dispute remained unresolved and a certificate to that effect was issued. The applicant requested that the dispute be resolved through arbitration.
11. During the arbitration process, the applicant submitted a bundle consisting of his statement and was marked Exhibit “A”. The respondent submitted its bundle was marked Exhibit “R”.

SURVEY OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS
Applicant’s case

12. Johannes Khazamula Mokadzie testified under oath and stated that he has been denied EMS-PMDS benefit on unjustifiable grounds as well as policy inconsistency. The respondent paid pay progression to the employees in December 2024. He became aware of the payments on 27 January 2025 through his colleagues. He engaged with his supervisor, Ms Napo, telephonically without success. He then sent WhatsApp message to her to which she did not respond. On 28 January 2025, he went to meet the Provincial PMDS Co-Ordinator, Mr Mulaudzi at the Head Office. Mr Mulaudzi advised him to talk to Mr Lukhele from Human Resources. Mr Lukhele told him that he had received a list of employees who should be paid from Ms Napo. He then approached Ms Napo at her office who told him that he was not on the list and could not be paid the pay progression because he did not submit the mid-year review document. he then told her that he had submitted the mid-year review report through a colleague, Ms Bogoswi who unfortunately could not remember anything. A telephone call was made to Mr Mulaudzi who confirmed that he did not submit the mid-year review document and therefore did not qualify.
13. He stated further that Annexure E was due in October 2023. In April 2024, he submitted the Annual Assessment document but was not advised that Annexure E was not submitted. He also submitted the Performance Agreement in May 2024 for the financial year 2024/2025. On 25 June 2024, he was advised through a message, that he did not submit Annexure E for 2023. He indicated then that he thought he had submitted.
14. He then went back to Mr Lukhele who contacted his Supervisor, Ms Napo. She again advised that he did not qualify because he did not submit Annexure E. on 25 January 2025, he then submitted Annexure E to Ms Napo for signature. Ms Napo advised him to contact Mr Mulaudzi who told him that the document will be received for compliance only and not for payment purposes. He then wrote a letter of complaint to the Acting Director EMS-PMDS, Dr Manzini. The complaint eventually came to Mr Moseama, Chief Director who responded to him in writing that Annexure E will be accepted for compliance purposes only.
15. He further stated that he found out from another colleague that Mr Ramabu did a cross transfer. According to PMDS policy, any employee who does a transfer should enter into a new performance agreement within three months. The names of these colleagues were on the list sent to Mr Lukhele for payment. In addition, Mr Salame and Mr Molalothoko joined the respondent in the middle of the performance and they were paid the pay progression. He believes that the absence of Annexure E is used as smokescreen to settle personal scores.
16. Under cross examination, the applicant conceded that he understood that the reason for non-payment of his pay progression was that he did not submit Annexure E and mid- term review report through he submitted through a colleague which he could not prove.

Respondent’s case

17. Kahlodi Lucia Napo stated under oath that she is the Grant Manager for learners with severe to profound intellectual disability grant. She currently has 32 team members under her supervision. She stated further that at the beginning of each year, she signs contracts with her team members. During the middle of the year, she does reviews of performance with the team members and finally does annual reviews with them. During annual reviews of performance, she considers contract documents, Annexure A, C, D and I. However, during mid-term reviews, the completion of Annexure E and F have to be concluded. The final score achieved by an employee is calculated based on the performance for the annual period. The Performance Management and Development
18. During the financial year 2023/2024, the applicant did not submit the mid-term review report. He only submitted the annual review report. When he submitted the annual review report in Block A, she was in the PMDS Office. It was established that there was a missing Annexure E which is the mid-term review report. She called the applicant who did not answer the call. She then sent a WhatsApp message to inform him about the missing Annexure E. he responded to the message and said he thought he had submitted. The applicant subsequently did not take steps to establish what happened to the Annexure E.
19. In January 2025, the applicant came to her office and later sent an email that he was not paid a pay-progression benefit. At that point, he was angry. He then told her that he had submitted Annexure E through a colleague. He was not sure if it was submitted by Rebecca or Valencia. She then told him that nobody submitted on his behalf and a register of those that submitted was there. His colleagues allegedly saw his submission being destroyed by her.
20. During further submissions, the applicant told her that he never thought the non-submission of Annexure E had financial implications. On 24 January 2025, the Human Resource office advised him that the applicant had raised a grievance with Dr Manzini. The applicant was later advised through a letter that the submission of Annexure E will be for compliance purposes.
21. In respect of the two comparators, Solani and Molalathoko, both of them were not paid the pay progression benefit because they did not complete the cycle and therefore did not qualify for the benefit. Mr Molalathoko started on 01 January 2023 and Ms Salani started on 01 October 2023. Both were not paid and a persal report was referred to, Exhibit R3. In addition, a copy of the register where it is clear that she did not submit the two comparators’ reviews was submitted.
22. In respect of the last two comparators, Maphuphe and Ramabu, she also stated that they were not paid because they terminated their services when they joined the respondent. They had to work for 24 months before they could qualify for the benefit.

ANALYSIS OF THE PARTIE’S SUBMISSIONS

23. The applicant has launched this matter purely because he was dissatisfied with the respondent’s decision not to pay him the pay progression for the financial year 2022 to 2023 financial year. The reason given for the non-payment of the pay progression was that the applicant did not submit Annexure E, which is the mid-year review assessment report.
24. The critical question that the applicant had to answer was whether he indeed submitted Annexure E. the applicant himself testified to the effect that this report was due in October 2023. To that extent, he stated that he gave the report to his colleague, Mr Bogashi, to submit. Strange, Mr Bogoshi cannot remember anything about such arrangement. The applicant’s supervisor, Ms Napo, told him that he could not be paid because he did not submit Annexure E. this was reiterated by both Mr Mulaudzi as well as Mr Moseamo’s letter where the applicant was advised that his submission of Annexure E on 29 January 2025 will be received for compliance purposes and not for payment of pay progression.
25. It is clear from the applicant’s evidence that he did not submit Annexure E to his supervisor. Instead, he asked his colleague to submit for him. The person who was to acknowledge receipt of Annexure E that is Ms Napo, the said Annexure E does not recall. The result is that I cannot escape the conclusion that Annexure E was submitted in October 2023 to Ms Napo. It was the applicant’s responsibility to ensure that Annexure E is submitted on time which he failed to prove.
26. The applicant sought to create an impression that Annexure E is used as a smokescreen to settle personal issues with Ms Napo. I have to reject this view because consistently, Ms Napo told the applicant the reason for his name not being submitted for payment of pay progression, that is non submission of Annexure E. I cannot see any personal issue in this case. Even if there was a personal issue between them, the applicant could have simply lodged a grievance to resolve the issue.
    AWARD
27. The respondent, Department of Education-Limpopo did not commit any unfair labour practice relating to non-payment of pay progression against the applicant, Mokadze Johannes Khazamula.
28. The referral is hereby dismissed.

Commissioner
M.N Masetla