23 October 2026 – ELRC226-26/27MP

Commissioner: NTATE MABILO

Case No.: ELRC226-26/27MP

Date of Award: 23 October 2026

In the ARBITRATION between:

Baloyi, CJ
(Union / Applicant)

and

Department of Higher Education and Training
(Respondent)

DETAILS OF HEARING AND REPRESENTATION:

The default arbitration hearing of the alleged unfair labour practice dispute between Baloyi, CJ (Applicant) and the Department of Higher Education and Training (Respondent) was held under the auspices of the Education Labour Relations Council (“ELRC”), at Mapulaneng TVET College in Acornhoek, on 28 September 2026.
The applicant appeared in person and the respondent was absent and not represented. When the respondent failed to arrive, the arbitration hearing started in terms of section 138 (5)(b)(i) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995.
The proceedings were manually and digitally recorded.
PRELIMINARY ISSUES
There were no preliminary issues raised.
ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
I am required to determine whether the respondent acted unfairly in issuing the applicant with one month suspension without pay, and if so to determine a remedy.
Relief sought was the setting aside of the sanction of one month suspension without pay.
BACKGROUND TO THE DISPUTE
7.The applicant started working for the respondent since 1 September 1998.
His latest position is Head of Division/Senior Education Specialist.
His salary is R620 000.00 per year.
The respondent is the Education Department of Mpumalanga.
SURVEY OF EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS:
Applicant party submissions:
The applicant, Chukumetani Jerry Baloyi testified under oath and stated the following:
During Covid 19 he worked from home. That was about 2019/2020. In March 2021 his employment was terminated while he was working from home. On 29 September 2021 he was reinstated by the department. He was then subjected to a disciplinary hearing and he was acquitted.
He continued with work even though the Campus Manager was not willing to work with him. Since then he had been constantly subjected to disciplinary hearings. He had been in conflict with his supervisor since 2020.
In 2024 he was subjected to a hearing for 4 charges and he was not found guilty of any of the charges. Instead, he was found guilty of insolence for which he was not charged. For this he was given a sanction of one month suspension without pay.
The witness accepted that he did state that she was wicked and that was based on a conflict that was pending and no one was prepared to address it. Someone had been appointed to do his work while he is available to do it.
Relief sought was to have the sanction of one month suspension without pay nullified.
Respondent party submissions:
The respondent was absent and not represented.
ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS:
The dispute was referred as unfair labour practice in terms of section 186(2) (a) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 as amended. According to the LRA there are specific actions that constitute unfair labour practice and they are stated as follows:

(a) unfair conduct by employer relating to the promotion, demotion, probation, training or provision of benefits.
(b) the unfair suspension of an employee or any unfair disciplinary action short of dismissal in respect of an employee.
(c) failure or refusal by an employer to re-instate or re-employ a former employee in terms of any agreement.
(d) an occupational detriment, other than dismissal, in contravention of the Protected Disclosure Act of 2000.
17. The applicant’s matter is directly linked to subsection (b) above.
18. In the case at hand, the applicant’s version is that he was unfairly treated by being constantly subjected to disciplinary hearings for no valid reasons and finally being issued a sanction for an offence he was not charged for. He had been sidelined and someone had been appointed to do the functions he was supposed to do. There is a conflict and no one want to attend to it. Instead of resolving the conflict, he is persecuted.
19. In the absence of any other version, the applicant’s version remains unchallenged and is regarded as the true version. The version of the respondent was that he was not the most suitable candidate as stated in the minutes of the interview committee and in the recommendation of the SGB. In addition, he was appointed to a post of HOD similar to the one he was aggrieved about. The applicant did therefore not suffer any prejudice. The post he currently occupied was located next to the address he provided in his application.
20. I considered all relevant evidence and arguments raised by the applicant party and I have only referred to evidence and arguments that I regard necessary to substantiate my findings and determination of the dispute.
21. Flowing from the above, it became clear that the applicant did indeed make a case for unfair action by the respondent in issuing a sanction of suspension without pay for a misconduct that he was never charged for and therefore not made to answer to.
Based on the above, the award is as stated below.
Award: