View Categories

20 March 2026 -ELRC385-25/26KZN

IN THE ELRC ARBITRATION
BETWEEN:

NEHAWU obo Dlamini, Ayanda “the Applicant”
and
THE HOD: KWAZULU-NATAL DOE “the Respondent”

ARBITRATION AWARD

Case Number: ELRC385-25/26KZN

Date of arbitration: 09 February 2026

Date of Award: 19 March 2026

Lungisani Mkhize
ELRC Arbitrator
Education Labour Relations Council
ELRC Building
261 West Avenue
Centurion
Tel: 012 663 0452
Fax: 012 643 1601
E-mail: gen.sec@elrc.co.za
Website: www.elrc.org.za

DETAILS OF HEARING AND REPRESENTATION

  1. The arbitration commenced on 09 February 2026 online via a zoom meeting.
  2. The Applicant, Ms. Ayanda Dlamini was represented by Mr. Bonginkosi Zulu, a NEHAWU Official. The Respondent, the Department of Education- KwaZulu Natal was represented by Ms. Nonhlanhla Cele, its Senior Personnel Practitioner.
  3. The proceedings were digitally recorded.
  4. The services of an interpreter were not required.
  5. The matter was heard and finalized.

ISSUE TO BE DECIDED

  1. I am required to determine whether the Respondent committed an unfair labour practice relating to unfair disciplinary action against the Applicant. If I find that the unfair labour practice was committed, I must decide the appropriate remedy.

BACKGROUND

  1. The Applicant is employed on a permanent basis with persal number 27319814 as an educator at the Brighton Beach Primary School under the UMlazi Circuit of the Respondent. She has 7 years’ teaching experience.
  2. On 07 March 2025, the Applicant was issued with a verbal warning by her School Principal. Allegedly, the Applicant’s verbal warning was still in her file 7 months after it was issued.
  3. On 24 June 2025, the Applicant allegedly resigned from the South African Democratic Teachers Union (SADTU) and joined the National Educators Health and Allied Workers Union (NEHAWU).
  4. ON 25 June 2025, the Applicant was issued with a written warning following 11 serious allegations. The principal was instructed to retract the Applicant’s warning within 48 hours, but this did not happen.
  5. On 08 July 2025, the Applicant referred an unfair labour practice dispute pertaining to unfair disciplinary action against the Respondent. On 29 July 2025, the Respondent issued the Applicant a letter retracting the warnings. The ELRC set the matter for conciliation on 01 August 2025, but the Respondent could not attend due to a technical error. A certificate of non-resolution was issued.
  6. The ELRC then set the matter for arbitration before me on 08 September 2025. Both parties appeared and a point in Limine was raised by the Respondent. A Jurisdictional Ruling was issued on 25 October 2025.
  7. The ELRC then set the matter for arbitration before me on 09 December 2025. Both parties appeared. The parties reverted to conciliation where it was agreed that on or by 11 December 2025, the Respondent would set aside the warnings issued to the Applicant with a clear effective date. The Applicant asked for a written apology and a meeting where the School Principal would apologize publicly at school to the Applicant. The Respondent asked to be given time to engage to try and resolve the matter. The Applicant agreed and the matter was adjourned with an agreement that the parties would be given until 09 February 2026 to try and resolve the matter.
  8. Since no feedback was received from the parties, the ELRC then set the matter for arbitration before me on 09 February 2026 as indicated in paragraphs [1] to [4] of this award.

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS

  1. As per section 138 of the LRA, I only summarized the evidence which I regarded to be relevant to the dispute and which helped me to reach my decision.
  2. The Applicant did not call any witnesses and lead any evidence.

The Applicant’s Response

  1. The Applicant Union Representative, Mr. Bonginkosi Zulu submitted as follows: Mr. Zulu said Mr. Mathonsi would not be joining us and wanted to hear if the Respondent had issued a letter granting the two reliefs we agreed on, on 10 December 2025.
  2. After the Respondent’s response, the Applicant submitted that she dropped her request for the additional reliefs as it was clear to her that the Respondent was shielding her principal and focusing on politics about her Union membership.
  3. The Applicant Union Representative further submitted that the Applicant party were satisfied with the already submitted letter retracting the warnings against the Applicant as they did not have proof on hand that the Applicant forwarded her SADTU resignation letter to the Respondent and SADTU for it to be processed. He also submitted that they were informed by the ELRC to use the portal to refer their case and did not provide their manual referral form when the Respondent was served.
  4. He will not be leading evidence and calling witnesses in support of the Applicant’s version. He would like the ELRC to make a decision with the available information before it. He had to rush to educate his class and the Applicant had to rush to her class as well.

The Respondent’s submissions

  1. The Respondent Representative, Ms. Nonhlanhla Cele submitted as follows: The letter retracting the warnings against the Applicant were still applicable as the Applicant was still a member of SADTU today and it was untrue that she was no longer its member. Moreover, the relief of a written apology and compensation were not on the referral form they received but were added after the exchange of documents where an older manually written referral was added and the Respondent did not have to consider it.

ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT

  1. Section 23 (1) of the 1996 Constitution of the Republic of South Africa read together with sections 185 and 186(2) of the Labour Relations Act, 66 of 1995 provides that everyone has the right to fair labour practices.
  2. The true dispute before me is whether the action of the Respondent of issuing warnings to the Applicant amounted to unfair disciplinary action or not. The Applicant had the burden of proof in this matter but no evidence was led. The Applicant party dropped her remaining reliefs sought and expressed dissatisfaction on what she considered a defense for the Principal by the Respondent using union membership politics.
  3. The Applicant Union Representative also abandoned this matter stating that they had to go to class and that the ELRC had to end the matter themselves based on the information it had.
  4. Without any evidence to consider, I have no option but to dismiss this matter as the party with a burden of proof abandoned its case and did not lead evidence.

AWARD

  1. I find that the Respondent, HOD of KWAZULU NATA: DOE did not commit unfair labour practice against the Applicant, NEHAWU obo Dlamini, Ayanda.
  2. Accordingly, this matter is dismissed.
  3. The ELRC Case Management Department is directed to close this matter.

L Mkhize
Arbitrator 19 March 2026
ELRC385-25/26 KZN