Commissioner :E Maree
Case Number :ELRC865-25-26GP
Date of Award : 18 June 2025

In the ARBITRATION between

NEHAWU obo Mntambo & 7 Others
(Applicants’)

and

South West Gauteng College/DHET
(Respondent)

Applicants’ representative Mr. T. Mntameka

Respondent’s representative Ms. N. Zondi

Details of hearing and representation

1. The arbitration was heard on Microsoft Teams on 10 April 2026 and 29 May 2026.
2. The applicants’ were represented by an official for, NEHAWU Mr. T. Mntameka while the respondent was represented by Ms. N. Zondi a labour relations officer. The applicants submitted bundles A and A1 and the respondent bundle B.
3. At the conclusion of the arbitration, the parties have agreed to submit written closing arguments on/before 5 June 2026 at 16:00.

Issue to be decided

4. I have to determine the interpretation and application of Collective Agreement 2/2013,

Survey of evidence and arguments

The LRA requires that brief reasons be given in an award, therefore the following is a summary of the relevant evidence given under oath and submissions made in argument all of which is not reflected in this award but had nevertheless been taken into account.

Applicants evidence

5. Eight (8) witnesses testified in order to prove on a preponderance of probabilities that Collective Agreement 2/2013 applies to the applicants and should be interpreted in their favour.
6. The first applicant, Ms. Basetsana Sitenjwa, testified that she is number 2 on the list (Bundle A page 22) of P1 lecturers at Roodepoort campus. She had been employed since 11 April 2023 and had signed contracts ‘’more than 10 times’’ on a monthly basis. She is employed in a vacant, substantive and funded post and is an ‘’exceptional’’ lecturer and must be absorbed permanently as she had been employed for more than 3 years.
7. Bundle B page 3 is a fixed term contract for the period 1 March 2026 until 31 March 2026 and she started on 11 April 2023.
8. The second applicant, Ms. Thokozani Shongwe testified that she is number 8 on the list and commenced employment on 24 August 2023 and had signed ‘’more than 5 contracts’’ either for 1, 3 or 6 months without any breaks. Her post is vacant, substantive and funded. Her performance is ‘’brilliant’’ and student numbers grew from 6 to 80.
9. Ms. Shongwe submitted that she did not work during July 2025 as they were not called and in January 2026 they were not called which is ‘’a technique to break employment’’.
10. The third applicant, Ms. Nonkululeko Mbatha stated that she is number 6 on the list and had been employed since 24 October 2023 for about 2 to 3 years. She had signed ‘’many’ contracts for 3 months at a time but had not yet been permanently absorbed. She is employed in a substantive, vacant and funded post. Her performance is ‘’good’’. The contract ( Bundle B page 12) is from 9 February 2026 until 28 February 2026. This is the only contract in the bundle and does not show her full period of employment. She ‘does not know why the employer do it and thinks it is to protect themselves’’.
11. The fourth applicant, Ms. Lebogang Ramasala testified that she is shown on the list as ‘’Ramasala’’ and had been employed since 15 July 2022 until June 2025. She had signed contracts ‘’every 3 months’’ and had been employed for 3 years and 8 months. She is employed in a substantive, funded and vacant post. Her performance is ‘’exceptional’’ and in 2024 had been under the top 10 best performers. She must be absorbed as permanent employee as she had been employed for more than 12 months.
12. Ms Ramasala stated that the contract (Bundle B page 1) is for the period 9 February 2026 until 28 February 2026. She ‘’does not know why’’ it is for only 1 month and ‘’thinks the employer is protecting themselves’’.
13. The fifth applicant, Ms. Bonolo Seema testified that she is number 7 on the list under her previous surname ‘’Kekana’’. She had been employed since 1 April 2024 and had ‘’signed many contracts’’ . The contracts were at first for 3 months and then from 2025 it was on a monthly basis. She is an a vacant, substantive and funded post. She must be permanently absorbed as she had been employed for 2 years. Her performance is ‘’good’’.
14. Ms Seema stated that her contract (Bundle B page 14) is from 9 March 2026 until 1 April 2026. She ‘’does not know why the employer only shows March and thinks it is to protect themselves’’.
15. The sixth applicant, Ms. Gabisile Mntambo testified that she is on the list and had signed contracts ‘’a dozen of times’’. She started on 28 February 2023 and had ‘’30 contracts’’ for a period of 3 years for 3 months at a time. Her post is vacant, funded and substantial.
16. Ms Mnatambo stated that she is under the top 5 performers with an 80% pass level. The contract (Bundle B page 5) is from 9 February 2026 until 28 February 2026. Although it is her contract she had been employed for more than 3 years and ‘’does not know why all contracts are not in the bundle and thinks it is to mislead the Commissioner to not show the full service and to poke holes at us’’. She ‘’thinks the employer changed the fixed term contract due to the class action to show it was not substantive and not funded’’.
17. The seventh applicant, Ms. Lungile Dlamini testified that she is number 3 on the list and had been employed since 14 February 2024 for period of 3 months at a time. She had signed contracts ‘’many times’’. She is in a vacant, funded and substantive post. During January 2026 she was not called to sign a contract. Her performance is ‘’good’’
18. Ms Dlamini submitted that the contract (Bundle B page 17) is from 1 August 2025 until 31 December 2025 but ‘’does not tell my whole story’’. This is done by the employer ‘’to show a break in service’’. Bundle A does not have all her contracts and she ‘’does not know why’ as she signed all contracts and ‘’was given a copy every time’’. Her contract ended December 2025 and she was not called back. She is covered by the collective agreement as she had been employed for more than 12 months.
19. The eight witness, Mr. Moloi Masalinas Martin Molefe testified that he is the deputy chairperson of Nehawu and PL1 lecturer. The applicants are members of Nehawu and had not been permanently absorbed despite being employed for more than 12 months due to ‘’mismanagement’.
20. Mr. Molefe submitted that the collective agreement applies to the applicants. Bundle A page 32 is an email sent to all shown on the mail, and page 30 is circular 6/2025. There is no mention of cost containment. Page 93 is a reminder that contracts are expiring and he ‘’thinks this is due to the college not wanting to absorb and this is one way to do it’’. They were informed by ‘’Snyman’’ that ‘’there will be no terminations and that members will be called back’’. This did not happen and not all were called back. Bundle A page 98 is the recruitment and selection policy that deals with contracts and recruitment processes.

Respondent’s evidence

21. Mr Andre Schlemmer testified that he is the Deputy Principal: Corporate Services at Gauteng ( that includes HR) and amongst others deals with fixed term contracts and service contracts. All managers report to him and he would sign contracts on behalf of the employer, if the managers are not available. Fixed term contacts are signed if an employee is absent such as illness or maternity leave of if there is not enough lecturers.
22. Mr Schlemmer submitted that during 2025 there were 29 fixed term employees and during 2026, there were 16. Contracts are signed by all parties, submitted to HR and are then captured on the system for payment. The signatories are thus aware that they are signing a fixed term contract and no other documents are signed.
23. With reference to bundle B page 9, Mr Schlemmer stated that such is an advertisement for a temporary post at Business management for a 3 month period. The advertisement does not mention absorption on a permanent basis and an employee is thus aware of the 3 month contract period.
24. Mr Schlemmer stated that bundle B page 1 shows a fixed term contract for Lebohang Melita Ramasala for 9 February 2026 to 28 February 2026 and page 2 shows the signatures of the employee, himself as well as witnesses.
25. It was pointed out that fixed terms contracts were also signed for the applicants, all contracts were signed by the applicant and a witness and an authorised representative of the respondent and a witness -.

Basetsana Ellen Sitenjwa ( pages 3 & 4) from 1 March 2026 to 31 March 2026;
Gabisile Mntambo ( pages 5 & 6 from 9 February 2026 until 28 February 2026;
Thokozani Shongwe (pages 7 & 8) from 1 March 2026 to 31 March 2026;
Nonkululeko Nluthando Mbatha (pages 12 & 13) from 9 February 2026 to 28 February 2026;
Bonolo Cindy Seema ( pages 14 & 15) from 9 March 2026 to 31 March 2026;
Lungele Dlamini (pages 17 & 18) from 1 August 2025 to 31 December 2025;
Thokozani Shongwe ( pages 19 & 20) from 1 August 2025 to 31 December 2025,

26. In conclusion Mr Schlemmer submitted that these were the only contracts signed by his office and that all were preceded before the end of its term by a letter that the contract is expiring. There are no letters that the employees would be permanently absorbed.

Analysis of evidence and arguments

27. Collective Agreement 2 of 2013 states under the heading ‘’Purpose’’ that ‘’The purpose of this agreement is to effect, within the approved post establishment of the College, the permanent appointment of serving temporary and contract lecturers who have been employed in the College establishment for a period of 12 months or more on a continuous basis’’
    Continuous service is defined as ‘’the current unbroken or broken service within the College as a lecturer proved that any broken service was of 120 calendar days or less’’
28. The crux of the evidence rendered by the applicants was that they had been employed in excess of 2 to 3 years and therefore should be absorbed as permanent employees in terms of the collective agreement.
29. Regarding the contracts evidence was led that such was continuously signed since employment commenced since 2022-2024. It was submitted by Ms. Sitenjwa that she had signed contracts ‘’more than 10 times’’. Ms. Shongwe testified that she had signed ‘’more than 5 contracts’’.
30. Ms. Mbatha, Ms Seema and Ms Dlamini stated that they had signed ‘’many’ contracts whereas Ms Ramasala submitted that she had signed contracts ‘’every 3 months’’ and Ms Mntambo that she had signed ‘’30 contracts’’ .
31. The respondent’s witness Mr. Schlemmer testified with reference to Bundle B regarding the contracts of the applicants on a monthly fixed term basis that varied for either February 2026, March 2026 or a longer fixed terms contract from August 2025 to December 2025 ( paragraphs 24 and 25 supra).
32. The applicants who had the onus to proof continuous service for more than 12 months only provided two fixed term contracts, namely for Shongwe (Bundle A page 71) from 1 August 2025 to 31 December 2025 and one for Dlamini (page 81) for 1 August 2025 to 31 December 2025. Page 93 contains a letter addressed to Sitenjwa reminder her of the termination of her fixed term contract 31 December 2025. This also ties in to the evidence rendered by Mr. Schlemmer.
33. There are no contracts in bundle A to show ‘’many contracts’’, ‘’30 contracts’’ , ‘’more than 10 times’’ or ‘’more than 5 contracts’’ as claimed by the applicants all of whom claimed that such contracts do not appear as the respondent ‘’wanted to protect itself’’, ‘’wanted to misled the Commissioner’’, ‘’it is a technique to break employment’’ and ‘’did this due to the class action’’.
34. Ms. Dlamini submitted that she had signed all contracts and ‘’was given a copy every time’’.
35. If so, why were her copies not included in bundle A (the bundle of the applicants). The same goes for the other applicants if indeed they also have received copies. Even if no copies were received, contracts (as per the evidence of the applicants) were signed. Why did the union and/or the applicants not request such from the respondent or if not forthcoming, not apply for a subpoena to obtain such?
36. In closing it was argued on behalf of the applicants that they had proven 12 months of continuous service and had shown that the work is ongoing, permanent and paid for by the employer. It was also submitted that the respondent’s bundle only shows the contracts for 2026 which was a ‘’deliberate and calculated strategy’’ to create a false impression’’.
37. I have do not agree with the arguments as shown in this award.
38. The applicants failed to discharge the onus to prove that they had been employed for 12 continuous months and thus must be permanently absorbed as provided in the collective agreement.

Award

39. I therefore make the following award-

The applicants failed to proof that they were employed for a continuous period of 12 months and should be permanently absorbed as per Collective Agreement 2/2013.

I therefore find that the Respondent correctly interpreted and applied the provisions of Collective Agreement 2/2013.

The case is dismissed

Dated and signed at Pretoria on 18 June 2026

Commissioner
E Maree