22 May 2026 – ELRC1133-25/26GP

IN THE EDUCATION LABOUR RELATIONS COUNCIL

Case No ELRC1133-25/26GP

In the matter between

PSA obo Matsie Paulina Applicant

and

Education Department of Gauteng Respondent

DETAILS OF THE HEARING AND REPRESENTATION
[1] This matter was enrolled for arbitration of an unfair labour practice related to suspension dispute, on 4 May 2026.
[2] The arbitration was held virtually under the auspices of the Education Labour Relations Council (ELRC), in terms of section of section 186(2) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995, as amended (the LRA).
[3] Matsie Paulina, the Applicant, was present and represented by Mr UB Matlou (Matlou), her PSA union representative.
[4] Education Department of Gauteng, the Respondent, was represented by Mr V Ndlovu (Ndlovu), its Labour Relations Officer.
[5] The proceedings were digitally recorded.

ISSUE TO BE DECIDED
[6] I am required to determine whether there was unfair conduct relating to suspension of the Applicant by the Respondent.
[7] If I find that there was unfair conduct relating to suspension, I must determine the appropriate relief, otherwise the referral will be dismissed

BACKGROUND TO THE ISSUE
[8] On narrowing of issues, it was common cause that the Applicant was currently employed by the Respondent at Parklands High School, as an Afrikaans Second Additional language Educator. She still worked for the Respondent, and placed on precautionary transfer.
[9] The Applicant was not allowed to mark the papers she was appointed to mark on 15 November 2025 – 24 November 2025 and on 30 November 2025 to 12 December 2025.
[10] She was supposed to be paid transport costs from Sasolburg to the marking centres in Germiston Hoerskool Els and Allan Glen High School in Roodeport.
[11] The Applicant challenged unfair suspension on the grounds that she was not paid and her transport costs were not reimbursed after cancellation of her marking contract, expulsion from marking, without valid reasons.
[12] According to the Respondent the Applicant failed to declare to the examination department that she was facing allegations of corruption related to examinations. Had they been aware, she would not have been appointed to mark.
[13] The Applicant was appointed to mark papers linked to the subject that she was teaching. In the interest of the integrity of grade 12 examination, the Marking Centre Manager at Allan Glen in Roodepoort had informed the Applicant not to proceed with marking because of allegations of corruption related to examinations that she was facing.
[14] The Applicant sought compensation.
[15] Both parties requested to submit written closing arguments by 10 May 2026. Same received were considered in the analysis below.

SURVEY OF THE EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT
[16] Mr Matlou called the Applicant as the sole witness for her case, and submitted a bundle of documents marked A (pages 1-10)
[17] Mr Ndlovu, elected not to call any witnesses to testify. He submitted a bundle of documents marked R (pages 1-14).
Below is the summary of the evidence led.

APPLICANT’S CASE
Witness: Matsie Paulina (the Applicant)
[18] The Applicant testified that she was officially released to mark, by the School Principal, Ms Fatima Gandhi, and the IDSO.
[19] The Marking Centre Manager, Mrs C Van Rooyen, who initially told her that she was suspended and not allowed to mark, allowed her to proceed with preparations to mark after system verification showed that she was not suspended from school, but active as an educator. She had told Van Rooyen that that she was not suspended but reported to the District Office.
[20] Van Rooyen and the Afrikaans Facilitator for the Ekurhuleni South District subsequently expelled her from marking without any valid reasons provided.
[21] She had not done anything that should have stopped her from marking, she was surprised and shocked by being expelled.
[22] The Respondent did not suspend her, as Van Rooyen alleged. There was no document in terms of the policy that stated that she should not mark, she qualified to mark.

Cross-Examination

[23] During cross examination, the Applicant testified that she was never suspended from school, but placed on precautionary transfer at the District Office, according to the 18 September 2025 letter issued by the Acting Head of Department, Mr Albert Chanee (Chanee).
[24] She currently reported at the Ekurhuleni South District Office. Mr Chanee did not suspend her.
[25] Section 186 (2)(a) of the LRA in relation to unfair labour practice did not apply to her.

RESPONDENT’S CASE
[26] Mr Ndlovu, elected not to call any witnesses to testify.

SURVEY OF THE EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS
[27] Section 185(b) of the LRA provides that, every employee has the right not to be subjected to unfair labour practices. In section 186(2)(b) of the LRA, an unfair labour practice is defined as any unfair act or omission that arises between an employer and employee involving inter alia the unfair suspension of an employee.
[28] In this case, the Applicant conceded that she was not suspended from her duties as an educator by the Respondent but placed on precautionary transfer and reported at the District Office.
[29] The Applicant did not challenge the precautionary transfer for alleged misconduct.
[30] The Applicant’s unfair suspension claim is based on the loss of marking payment and travelling costs from her home to the marking venue, following her expulsion for the marking centre. Also, dissatisfaction with the manner of her expulsion and the reasons that were provided for the same. I also considered the arguments raised in relation to the claim.
[31] Suspension in colloquial use means, the official prohibition of someone from holding their usual post or carrying out their usual role for a particular length of time, Oxford Dictionary.
[32] In the circumstances, it was not shown that the Applicant’s expulsion from marking exams was tantamount to official prohibition from holding her usual post or carrying out her usual role as an educator, for a particular length of time.
[33] The Applicant did not discharge the onus to show that the Respondent committed an unfair labour practice relating to suspension against the Applicant, as envisaged in section 186(2)(a).

Therefore, I make the following ruling.
RULING

[34] Education Department of Gauteng, the Respondent, did not commit unfair conduct relating to suspension against Matsie Paulina, the Applicant.
[35] The referral is dismissed.

Thus done and signed at Johannesburg on 22 May 2026