ARBITRATION

AWARD

Panellist: Seretse Masete
Case No: ELRC 1266-25/26LP
Date of Award: 22 /04/2026

In the ARBITRATION between:

Tshekishi Andries Kolobe

(Union / Applicant)

                                                                                And

Education Department of Limpopo

(Respondent)

Union/Applicant’s representative: Seopa Maruta Martin

Respondent’s representative: Portia Modipa

Particulars of the proceedings and representation

1. The arbitration hearing was held on 13 April 2026 at the Respondent ’s premises in Polokwane.
2. The Applicant, Tshekishi Andries Kolobe, was represented by Seopa Maruta Martin, a union official from SADTU, while the respondent, Education Department of Limpopo , was represented by Portia Modipa.
3. The proceedings were in English and digitally voice recorded.
4. The words educator(s) and teacher(s) will hereafter be used interchangeably referring to the same thing.

Issues to be determined

5. Whether or not the employer correctly interpreted and or applied ELRC Collective Agreement 4 of 2016 (the Resolution) when declaring the employee in excess.

Background and nature of the dispute

6. The employee was employed as an educator in April 1996 at Hwiti High School within Mankweng Circuit.
7. He alleged to have been unfairly declared in excess during the 2025 process of Redeployment and Rationalisation (RnR).
8. Paragraphs B.6.3, B.6.4.1. (B.6.4.2.1) B.6.4.2.2, B.6.4.2.4 and B.6.4.3, of the Resolution, were not correctly interpreted and applied by the employer during the process. Those paragraphs were further explained in the RnR guidelines as well as the allocation of the subjects per posts.
9. He believed the employer incorrectly interpreted and or incorrectly applied the Resolution and sought the process to be redone.
10. The employer argued that the process of RnR was correctly interpreted and applied including all the paragraphs mentioned by the employee in paragraph 8 above. The employee has been declared in excess even in the previous years, but he just did not want to accept.
11. The employer submitted one bundle of documents marked R and called one witness and the employee testified and called a witness to corroborate his version, and submitted one bundle of documents marked A..

Common issue: The employee was declared in excess.
Disputed issues: The paragraphs of the Resolution in paragraph 8 above were not correctly interpreted and or applied.

Evidence by the employee party
The employee, Tshekishi Andries Kolobe, testified under oath as follows:

12. He has been teaching English for 30 years but he was unfairly declared in excess. The principal did not adhere to the management plan. There was an induction on 6 November 2025 where he and the principal were part thereof. The agreement was that the process should start on 7 November, 10 and 12 November 2025. All the teachers declared additional to the staff establishment were to go and choose schools to be redeployed to. He was called for a meeting on 17 November 2025 and on arrival at that meeting, he found that it had started already. He was not informed about the staff establishment. The RnR process was only presented in that meeting, and only the outcomes were presented to them. Paragraph B.6.3 provided that the principal must inform his staff about the staff establishment but the principal did not comply with that paragraph.
13. Paragraph B.6.4.2.1, provided that the views of the teachers should be considered in the meeting and the principal did not take his views except to note them. Paragraph B.6.4.2.4, which dealt with LIFO, was not considered. There were four teachers teaching English and he was second in terms of experience and first in experience amongst the CS1 educators. He could teach English in all the grades, and he once received an award for producing 100% results. Paragraph 2.2 Page 9 of bundle , provided that the minutes should be kept during the views of the teachers in a meeting. The minutes were not presented to the teachers to be read for corrections and adoption. He did not know the minutes on page 14 of bundle R and they were not corrected and adopted. He did not know about the messages on page 22 and 23 of bundle R.
14. His WhatsApp was not functioning since 2025 until January 2026. The official mode of communication was a circular which would be signed by the teachers, even for meetings. Pages 20 and 21 of bundle R were the teachers who were absorbed when RnR was presented. The calculations were incorrectly done as well. Sepedi was given to the pincipal who included himself within the CS1 educators. The departmental head (DH ) languages was allocated English subjects, meaning that the DH competed with the CS1 educators when he was not supposed to. Same thing happened to post no 14 of the Deputy principal ( DP), who was not supposed to have competed with the CS1 educators.
15. He did attend the RnR meeting though he was called by a learner. He did not come with the guide to corroborate that the management should not be included in the RnR process. He also did not have the name of such document. He would not confirm who was scribing but there was a standing scriber, Netshaulo, at the school. However, he was not present when Netshaulo compiled the minutes. It was put to him that the principal would come and confirm that the Resolution was complied with. He was put on excess around the year 2022, and he wrote a grievance but it was not adjudicated. He did not agree that the process was done correctly. There was no letter issued to him as per paragraph B.6.4.3 to inform him that he was declared in excess.

2nd witness, Kgahliso Selema, testified under oath as follows:

16. He has been teaching at hwiti high school for some time. The principal did not follow the Resolution when declaring the employee in excess. The principal did not formally inform them of the meeting but sent learners to do so. The principal did not listen to the views of the teachers in terms of paragraph B.6.4.2.1 in the resolution except to say their views would be considered. He (principal) further did not follow paragraph B.6.4.2.4 (LIFO) because the employee was the most experienced in English. The minutes as stated on page 9 of bundle A, were never seen and corrected. He has never seen the minutes on page 14 of the R bundle. The experience, rank and competency/qualifications should be considered when matching teachers.
17. He did not now about the WhatsApp messages on page 22 and 23 of bundle R. The principal never formally convened a meeting but sent learners to call them. He ( principal) would call him or notify them through a circular but that did not happen as far as the RnR process was concerned. Some educators on page 21 of bundle A, were allocated the subjects they were not teaching. The principal did not show them the calculations to determine the number of educators required at the school. The principal came already having calculated alone without including the educator’s involvement.
18. The information on pages 20 and 21 of bundle A were the subjects that the teachers were supposed to teach. The subjects mentioned on Pages 20 and 21 of bundle A, were the ones the teachers majored with. He conceded that there was nothing wrong in teaching the subjects one has majored with. It was put to him that the principal was complying with page 10 paragraph 3 thereof. He answered that he did not know the qualifications of the teachers because those are private matters, but he later changed and said he knew them.
19. The employee was competent to teach English and has more experience than all the other educators. (Both parties agreed that if the educators have the same qualifications and they are at the same rank, but one is more experienced that the other, the one with more experience will go through).

Evidence by the employer party
The witness of the employer, Mosana Moremi Frans (the principal), testified under oath as follows;

20. He was the principal of hwiti high school. He did follow paragraph B.6.3 of the resolution on the 11th November 2025 while on sick leave, because he wrote on WhatsApp group to invite the staff for a meeting scheduled for 13 November 2025. In that WhatsApp, he told them that the staff establishment was the same with the previous one, see page 23 of bundle R. The employee received the message because the union confirmed. It was not true that the employee did not receive the message because the union knew about it and the employee was a member of the union executive committee. (not disputed).There was no learner sent to call a teacher to attend a meeting.
21. The employee was one of the two teachers who raised their views, but the employee’s views was like an explanation about LIFO. There was a meeting convened to deal with the views, and all the teachers were present but the employee. He knew about the meeting because they agreed on it.
22. He allocated the post with curricular needs as per paragraph B.6.4.2.2. in the Resolution. There were three educators teaching English in many classes than the employee. The employee was teaching less classes and he was not prepared to be allocated more work. He was once allocated grade 12 but the employee was not competent therein. He ( employee) had more experience, all educators who competed with him were at CS1 level, but one of them had honours degree. Two teachers including the employee were declared in excess. He looked at competencies which in that case favoured Macheru, because she used to go extra mile while teaching different papers.
23. He did not apply LIFO because the three educators were not comparable in terms of responsibilities attached to them. There were forms filled and submitted to the circuit. He did not personally write a letter to the employee to inform him of the declaration. There were several RnR processes in the previous years, but the department did not attend to them, no movement at all. The process was not pre-done. The employee was the one who suggested that the staff should be taken through and he was tasked to do so, as per the minutes on page 15 of bundle A. The resolution did not prescribe whether or not the minutes should be read after the process. On page 20 of bundle R, was the 2026 staff allocation. He did not agree that the management were not affected by the process. There was no clause that excluded the SMT’s from the process because they were also teaching.
24. He did consider administrative duties when conducting the process. It was put to him that the employee performed well, hence he was paid the QMS money. He answered that all educators were paid for QMS regardless of performance. It was put to him that when measuring performance during RnR, they consider QMS not just a thought. He answered that in RnR, all the factors are considered. He did not disregard experience as stated on page 10 of bundle A. The most experienced teachers were tired and inactive. Their experience would be like one repeated several times. He was referred to the procedure of dealing with incapacity as per page 23 of bundle A. It was put to him that the employee never failed to perform because he would have been disciplined. He answered that he knew that the employee could do more and he did not know why he did not. The employee was a very difficult person to work with, and he did not attend the departmental meetings and he (principal) was afraid of him.
25. He conceded that he was the one representing the employer at the school. He informed the staff about the meeting on 11 November 2025 because he wrote a WhatsApp and the Deputy principal refused to do it citing that he was afraid. He disagreed that the employee did not have WhatsApp at that time because that could be seen on the WhatsApp messages that someone has left the group. The employee further did not make him aware that he did not have WhatsApp on his phone.
26. He conceded that the people who attended the meeting should correct the minutes and adopt them but added that there was no staff meeting because it was the end of the year. It was put to him that the employee did not know the minutes because he never saw them and they were never corrected and adopted. There was no invite for the 19 November 2025 meeting because they all agreed about it. It was put to him that the employee did not attend the meeting because he did not know. He disagreed and cited that the employee was at the meeting but left early. He did not put the LO on the weighted level though it was supposed to have been weighted. He manoeuvred in order to make sure that learning and teaching would go on.

Analysis of the parties’ evidence

27. In my analysis, I am going to deal with the disputed paragraphs one by one. Paragraph B.6.4.1. Consulting the educators about the RnR in a formal meeting. The Resolution provided for the principal to consult the educators in a formal meeting to discuss the absorption of the educators who may be declared in excess. The substance here, is the existence of the meeting and the presence of the educators in such meetings. Writing a circular or sending a learner to call teachers, is only a procedural issue. The Resolution did not prescribe how the educators should be invited to such meetings. The employee did not dispute that he knew about the first meeting as well as the one of 19 November 2025. In the first meetings it was where the employee testified that the principal did not listen to their views. He was also aware of the meeting of 19 November 2025 because he did not dispute that he requested to be excused from that meeting due to some other commitments.
28. My finding on the balance of probabilities is that paragraph B.6.4.1 was substantively complied with. However, the Resolution prescribes the meeting to be a formal one. It is trite that in a formal meeting, there should be minutes accessible to every participant, read, corrected and adopted by the attendees, and the principal conceded to that averment by the employee. My finding on the balance of probabilities is that only procedure of convening the meeting was not followed and failure to follow procedure should not necessarily nullify the substance.
29. B.6.3. Informing the staff on the new staff establishment. There was no evidence that in the meetings, which were held, there was no staff establishment. The argument of how and when the information reached the educators, is a procedural issue which the Resolution did not prescribe. What is material on the balance of probabilities is that, the staff establishment was probably available during the process because it was used. Accordingly, I make a finding on the balance of probabilities that paragraph B.6.3, was not misinterpreted and it was also on the balance of probabilities not incorrectly applied.
30. Paragraph 6.4.2.1. Substantively, the meeting took place as indicated above. It is obvious that once there was a meeting, people would talk about something in that meeting. Both the employee and his witness, testified that the educators did raise some views in that meeting and the principal noted them. One should be alive to the fact that raising a view, does not necessarily mean that it must be implemented. However, the principal denied not to have considered the educators’ views. He testified that one of the educators who raised his views was the employee himself, where he said that the educators needed to be taken through and he (employee) was given a task of taking a lead to that effect. That evidence was also corroborated by the minutes on page 15 of bundle A. The employee did not dispute that evidence. For the minutes not to have been corrected and adopted did not necessarily mean that they were not existing. The employee further did not challenge the principal when he testified that, it was not true that the he (employee) did not receive the WhatsApp message, because the union knew about the matter and the employee was a member of the union executive committee. My finding on the balance of probabilities is that the views of the educators were in terms of paragraph B.6.4.2.1 considered during the process, but they might not have been incorporated.
31. Paragraph B.6.4.2.2. The needs of the institution. Paragraph 3.1 on page 10 of bundle A, Guidelines for the absorption of educators into the 2025 staff establishment, provided that the principal shall match the educators on the staff establishment according to experience, rank and competency/qualification. The Resolution made it further to include the number of classes, the time table and the allocation of learners to classes. In the current matter, it was common cause that the three educators who competed with the employee had degrees.
32. It was also not disputed that the employee qualified and could teach English even in the higher grades. It was also not disputed that the employee was more experienced than the other educators who competed with him. Both parties confirmed that should the educators tally in all of the factors but experience, the one who is more experienced should go through. The principal’s argument was that, even though the employee was more experienced than the others, Ms Macheru had more English classes and she was also willing to go an extra mile. He further testified that the employee was difficult to work with and he(principal) was afraid of him. People with more experience do not perform because they are tired. He preferred educators with less experience and who would perform. The employee was not even attending the meetings at the school and he refused to be allocated extra work. The inference here on the balance of probabilities is that, the principal declared the employee in excess because he was not co-operating and he was not performing as compared to Ms Macheru who was prepared to go an extra mile.
33. I agree with the employee on the balance of probabilities that,those factors did not form part of the requirements for matching the educators in the staff establishment during the process of RnR. They were different issues (disciplinary issues) which are dealt with in separate processes for instance as provided for in the QMS paragraph 16 on page 23 of bundle A. If one of the competing employees has more English classes than the other, the number of subjects should be considered. However, in the current case, Macheru had more English classes than the employee, but those were just English classes which the employee could teach as well.
34. The principal’s argument was that Ms Macheru was teaching more English classes than the employee and she could balance the papers( paper 1, paper2 etc). The classes the principal referred to, were the classes the employee could teach and there was no evidence to the contrary. It would be understandable if Ms Macheru was teaching the subjects and or grades the employee could not teach, e.g., Mathematics, Natural science etc. In such a cases, it would on the balance of probabilities, be fair to declare the employee in excess even if he had more experience than Macheru.
35. Paragraph B 6.4.2.4 ,LIFO. The most important criteria used during the RnR processes is curriculum needs as seen above. LIFO is applied when for instance two educators tallied in all factors. In the current matter, it was common cause that the employee was first in, and he was teaching English, and there was no evidence that his service was interrupted. Ms Macheru was last in and she was supposed to have been “first out”. LIFO would therefore on the balance of probabilities favour the employee.
36. Paragraph B 6.4.3. Informing the educator who has been declared in excess in writing. It was not disputed that the employee was not informed in writing that he was declared in excess. The argument by the principal that he had done his job and submitted to the circuit, which implied that it was the circuit which should have written to the employee, cannot stand on the balance of probabilities. The principal himself conceded that he was representing the employer as a principal at the school. Even if it was supposed to have been the circuit office to write a letter to the employee, it was still not done. The employee declared the dispute against the employer and not the principal. It was therefore a fact that the employer did not write to the employee informing him that he was declared in excess to the staff establishment. Paragraph B 6.4.3. was therefore on the balance of probabilities not correctly interpreted and or applied.
37. It sounded to me that there was a vacuum in terms of discipline at the school. The principal complained throughout the hearing about the employee not cooperating, not agreeing to be allocated work, he(principal) being afraid of the him etc. He further testified that even his Deputy principal refused to be delegated some of the duties. My take on the balance of probabilities is that those issues had nothing to do with the process of RnR in terms of the Resolution. They were disciplinary issues and the principal should have treated them accordingly. An employee who refuses to obey lawful instructions should be dealt with in terms of the due processes, not through the RnR process.
38. My finding based on the evidence led by the parties and my analysis above, is that the employer failed to interpret and or apply the ELRC Collective Agreement no.4 of 2016, particularly paragraphs B 6.4.2.2 and B.6.4.3.of annexure A .The matter should therefore be remitted back to the school for the process to be re-done.

Award

39. The employer did not interpret and or apply all the requirements and the guidelines of conducting RnR correctly during the process of declaring the employee in excess.
40. The RnR process conducted by the employer is hereby set-aside.
41. The matter is remitted back to the school to be re-done.
42. The employer is ordered to re-do the process and finalise it on or before 26 May 2026.
43. No order as to costs.

S.A. Masete (ELRC Panellist) 22/04/2026