IN THE EDUCATION LABOUR RELATION COUNCIL
Case Number – ELRC 449-25/26 NW
PANELLIST: MMAKGARE SHAI
DATE : 20 OCTOBER 2025

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

GAANGALEKWE METOE APPLICANT
And
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION- NORTHWEST RESPONDENT

ARBITRATION AWARD

DETAILS OF HEARING AND REPRESENTATION

1. The matter was scheduled for the 26th of September and the 6th of October 2025 via Online Media. Both parties were present. On both sittings, the applicant was represented by Mr. Tankiso Kabi, a NATU official, whereas Ms. Masaele Cornelia Cindy represented the respondent.
2. The proceedings were recorded digitally.
3. At the end of the proceedings, parties were directed to file closing arguments and same were considered herein.

ISSUE TO BE DECIDED

4. I am called upon to determine whether the applicant, Ms. Gaangalelwe Metoa’s was dismissed or not. In the event I find that she was dismissed I’m enjoined to determine further whether the said dismissal was fair or not. If I find that the dismissal was unfair, I will determine an appropriate remedy for her.
   BACKGROUND TO THE ISSUE
5. The applicant was employed as a temporary teacher placed against a position categorized as HD/ Deputy Principal Post. For that purpose, parties entered into a fixed term contract. It is the termination of this fixed term contract that the applicant is contesting.
   The respondent contested the above and argued that the applicant was placed against a promotional post and when the said post was filled, her contract came to an end because it was a fixed term contract, hence there was no dismissal.
   Currently there is no vacant position at the relevant school.
   EVIDENCE FOR THE APPLICANT
   GAANGALELWE MAGDELINE METOA TESTIFIED UNDER OATH AS FOLLOWS:
6. She was appointed to Magwane Technical School in July 2024. She offered English grade 8,10 and11. Her contract was up to the 31st of December 2024 and was placed against a promotional post. The contract was renewed in January 2025 and extended to 31st of July 2025 and the principal of the school told her that there will be teachers needed as the school has grown.
7. At the time, the school was up to grade 11 and grade 12 was to follow the following year. This meant that there would be teachers needed.
8. Page 1 “A” is the renewal of her contract. Page 2 contains recommendation of her appointment against a promotional post categorized as HD/Deputy Principal which was vacant. The problem she has with this is that the principal should have marked whether it is against HD or deputy principal, not HD/ deputy principal. The principal should be precluded from now selecting the deputy principal position as the one she was placed against as this was not mentioned in the document.
9. With regards to termination of her contract, she was given the notice thereof in January 2025.
10. She was appointed together with the other four educators and all of them had their contracts renewed with effect from 1stAugust 2025, whereas she was terminated and not absorbed like the others. Her letter of termination indicated that the reason for termination was that the deputy principal was now appointed.
11. The reason she believes her contract was not renewed is because the principal was demanding a payment of bribes of one thousand five hundred rand (R 1 500.00). When she was appointed, she was made to pay R3000,00. She refused to contribute further. Further that she joined NATU and the principal told her she appoints SADTU members only at the school.
    UNDER CROSS EXAMINATION SHE TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:
12. She was appointed against a promotional post and that position was filled with effect from the 1st of August 2025.

EVIDENCE FOR THE RESPONDENT
MR TSHEKEDI MOGATUSI TESTIFIED UNDER OATH AS FOLLOWS:

13. He is the Human Resource Manager at the respondent.
14. When one is appointed against a promotional post, when this position is advertised, the incumbent will be given notice that his/her contract would be terminated on a particular date. As soon as the contract lapses, the promoted person will then occupy the post. Further they cannot appoint a person permanently in a post that he/she does not qualify.

ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS

15. In this matter, dismissal is not common cause hence the onus to prove that dismissal took place falls upon the applicant. Once the applicant succeeds in this regard the onus reverts to the respondent to prove that the dismissal was fair procedurally and substantively. See in this regard Section 192 of Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 as amended. The dispute is determined on a balance of probabilities. This is achieved by weighing up the version of the applicant against that of the respondent. The one that is more probable wins the day. See in this regard Early Bird Farms (PTY) LTD v. Mlambo [1997] BLLR 541 (LAC), at 544.
16. In this case the applicant testified that she was dismissed as she expected her contract to be renewed and that the respondent failed to do so.
17. It is common cause that the applicant was appointed as an educator and placed against the post of the HD/ deputy principal, thus a promotional post. It is further common cause that the said position was advertised, and the applicant was given notice that the contract will expire at the end of July 2025. It is further common cause that the notice stated that the reason for termination was due to the fact that the post was now occupied. The applicant herself testified that when she returned to the school on the 1st of August 2025, she found the new deputy principal being introduced to the staff and the school governing body.
18. My assessment is that the parties entered into a fixed term contract which was extended from time to time. Such contract comes to an end at the fixed time or at the happening of a particular event. The applicant was aware that she was occupying a promotional post which would be advertised at some point so that a suitable incumbent can occupy it. The position was duly advertised, and the applicant was accordingly given notice that her fixed term contract would come to an end at the end of July 2025. Indeed, on the 1st of August, the promoted incumbent occupied the position.
19. Was the applicant dismissed in the circumstances? . I find that applicant’s fixed term contract came to a natural end through effluxion of time, hence no dismissal occurred.
20. Since I found that there was no dismissal it will serve no purpose to delve into whether dismissal was fair or not.

AWARD

21. I find that the applicant was not dismissed but her contract expired.

22. The applicant’s claim is dismissed.

M P SHAI
THE PANELIST