21 January 2026 -ELRC813-24/25LP

IN THE EDUCATION LABOUR RELATIONS COUNCIL ARBITRATION MEETING HELD IN Polokwane on the 21 November 2025

Case Number: ELRC813-24/25LP
In the matter between: –

Mokobane Phuti Cedrick Applicant

And

Limpopo Department of Education First Respondent

Sehata Mashilo William Second Respondent

ARBITRATION AWARD

Nature of the dispute: Section 186(2) of the LRA: unfair labour practice relating to promotion.

DETAILS OF THE HEARING AND REPRESENTATION

The hearing was held in Polokwane at the Department’s premises on the 21 November 2025.
The Applicant was represented by Mr. Deka Selebaleng Mathibela, a candidate attorney from MC Makwela and associates, while the Respondent was represented by Ms. Nthabeleng Rasebotsa, who is employed by Respondent as an Assistant Director responsible for grievances and disputes.
The Respondent submitted bundles of documents which were admitted as evidence and were marked as “R”. It included some 143 pages.
The proceedings were digitally recorded. At the end of the proceedings, parties requested an indulgence to file written closing arguments by Friday, 28 November 2025. I have since received same from both parties which was considered in this award.

THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE

I must determine whether the Respondent has committed an unfair labour practice for the purposes of section 186(2)(a) of the LRA by failing to shortlist and appointing the Applicant. If so, I shall determine the appropriate relief.

BACKGROUND TO THE DISPUTE

The Respondent advertised the position of Head of Department under circular No.1 Volume 3/2025.
Subsequently, the School Governing Body (“SGB”) did not shortlist the Applicant. Mr. Sehata, the second respondent, was recommended for appointment.
The Applicant alleges that the Respondent committed an unfair labour practice for failure to shortlist him.
The arbitration was then set down before me on the 21 November 2025. Mr. Sehata MW was joined to the proceedings and cited as the Second Respondent. He attended the proceedings, but chose not to participate by either adducing evidence and/or cross-examining the witnesses.
The matter was digitally recorded.

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT
Mr. MAPHUTI CEDRICK MOKOBANE

Mr. Mokobane testified under oath, and his evidence can be summarized briefly as follows. That he applied for post 14 at Dikoloi Secondary school, and met the curriculum requirements for Business studies and economics as per the advertisement. He testified that he holds a Bachelor of commerce in business management from the university of south Africa which was conferred on him in the year 2016. He further testified that business management in his academic transcript (page 49 of R) was equivalent to business studies as contained in the advertisement. He further testified that he holds a post graduate certificate in education (PGCE) which was acquired in the year 2018.
Mr. Mokobane further testified that he met all the requirement for phase 2 shortlisting, and ought to have been shortlisted.
Mr. Mokobane further testified that he was best suitable for appointment as he had acquired the necessary experience by participating as district examiner, and understands the departmental strategies.
He further testified that he taught economics for five (5) months, with no teaching experience for business studies.

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
Mr. SELLO ANDREAS MOKOENA

The Respondent’s first and only witness, Mr. Mokoena, testified under oath, and his evidence can be summarized briefly as follows. That he is the principal at Mydarling secondary school, and was the appointed chairperson for the shortlisting and interviews for the position in dispute.
He testified that the shortlisting panel were guided by collective agreement 2 of 2020, and read into the record page 32 of R which contained the scoresheets for phases 1 and 2 shortlisting.
Mr. Mokoena further testified that the panel received 33 applications, and in terms of clauses 2.2 on page 32 of “R”, they considered candidates with a minimum of three (3) years’ experience, and awarded the Applicant one (1) point. He further testified that the Applicant was not allocated a point in terms of clause 2.3 on page 32 of “R”, which referred to the curriculum requirements of the post being business studies and economics.
Mr. Mokoena further testified that the panel considered the qualification of teaching, being the Applicant’s PGCE, which does only comprise Economic management sciences (EMS) as the subject for which he was qualified to teach. He further testified that the Applicant did not have teaching experience and secondary level, and had not met the curriculum requirements in that he did not have methodology of teaching in business studies.
Mr. Mokoena further testified that in contrast, the second respondent met the curriculum needs as per the advertisement, and had more experience in teaching the required subjects at secondary level where he was already teaching.

ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT

I must determine whether the Respondent committed an unfair labour practice against the Applicant for failing to shortlist him.
According to the Respondent’s witness, Mr. Mokoena, the Applicant was not shortlisted because he did not meet the curriculum needs of the post, being the teaching methodology in business studies and economics.
Mr. Mokoena referred me to page 32 of “R”, which contained the scoring sheet for the panel which indicated that the Applicant did not meet the curriculum needs. He further referred me to page 56 of “R”, which contained the transcript for the Applicant’s PGCE.
The transcript shows that the Applicant only had a teaching method in economic and management sciences (EMS) and not business studies or economics. The Applicant argued that he has business management and economics as part of his bachelor of commerce degree.
It was common cause that the Applicant, despite arguing to the contrary, did not have teaching methodologies in business studies or economics, nor had any teaching experience in business studies.
He further submitted that his business management subject was equivalent to business studies. I am prepared to accept that business management and business studies maybe equivalent or similar.
However, the Applicant still falls short on the experience compared to the second respondent. Firstly, even if I accepted that business management was equivalent to business studies, it would not make any material difference in that the panel considered teaching methodologies in business studies and economics. The Applicant did not have a teaching methodology in business studies or management. Further, the Applicant only had five (5) months teaching experience in economics and no experience at all in teaching business studies or management in contrast to the incumbent who had over ten (10) years’ experience teaching both business studies and economics.
During cross examination, the Applicant was asked if he was the most suitable candidate by qualifications and experience compared to the incumbent, Mr. Sehata, to which he replied he was not. Put differently, the Applicant conceded that even if he was shortlisted, he would not have been the most suitable candidate for appointment.
The question for determination was whether the Respondent committed an unfair labour practice for failing to shortlist the Applicant. In my view, the answer is an emphatic no.
The overwhelming evidence vindicated the Respondent’s decision not to shortlist the Applicant as he had not met the curriculum needs of the school.
For the brief reasons set out above, I find that the Respondent did not commit an unfair labour practice against the Applicant.
In the circumstances, I make the following award.