Commissioner: Nasreen Jajbhay
Case No: ELRC25-26/27GP

Date of Award: 25 August 2026

In the ARBITRATION between:

EZEKIEL NGWENYA APPLICANT

and

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION – GAUTENG RESPONDENT

Union/Applicant’s representative: Mr Manyeneng

Respondent’s representative: Mr Mbonde

DETAILS OF HEARING AND REPRESENTATION

1. The dispute was referred to the Education Labour Relations Council, hereinafter (“Council”) by the applicant, Mr Ngwenya.
2. The matter was heard virtually on the 16th July 2026 and 17th August 2026 respectively.
3. The applicant appeared in person and was represented by Mr Manyeneng.
4. The respondent was represented by deputy Chief Labour Relations, Mr Mbonde.
5. The applicant did not require the services of an interpreter.

ISSUE TO BE DECIDED

6. I am required to decide whether the applicant was dismissed and if so, whether the dismissal is fair. I am further required to pronounce on an appropriate remedy, if applicable.

BACKGROUND

7. The applicant was employed as an Educator PL1 during February 2018. Dismissal was placed in dispute. The applicant is currently employed and is remunerated at a monthly salary of R33 000.00. The applicant sought restoration of his role from temporary to permanent status, his bonus, benefits and compensation as his primary remedy.

PRELIMINARY POINT

8. After the applicant closed his case, the respondent sought postponement of the proceedings on the basis that it’s key witness was booked off sick.
9. He undertook to furnish the Council with the medical certificate.
10. The applicant opposed the application on the basis that he sought finality to the matter.
11. Dismissal was placed in dispute.
12. It was the applicant’s version that the HR Director dismissed him.
13. I found that the evidence of the HR Director would assist the proceedings and allow me to render a fair determination.
14. In the premises, on good cause shown, the arbitration was postponed on condition that a valid medical certificate is submitted.

SURVEY OF EVIDENCE

It must be noted that, the below submissions serve as what I believed to be the pertinent points presented and must be read in conjunction with the documents adduced. I am required to provide a summary and not a verbatim record of the submissions presented.

APPLICANT’S CASE

15. The applicant relied on a bundle of documents marked and referred to as “A” for ease of reference.
16. The applicant testified inter alia that, his salary was not paid since January 2026. He was advised by the HR Director that his services had been terminated. When he raised an issue with the district, he was advised that his role had been converted to a temporary basis. He lost his benefits. He sought confirmation of his employment in 2023. His appointment date had been changed from 2019 to 2025. He completed a form requesting a conversion to permanent status in 2018.

RESPONDENT’S CASE

17. The respondent’s bundle of documents was marked “B” for ease of reference. Stephen Tshwane Deputy Director Human Resources, testified inter alia, he referred to the ELRC Form 1 which he stated summarized the applicant’s dispute. The applicant is employed on a temporary basis based on his education. He remains employed and was not dismissed. The applicant seeks reinstatement to permanent status. The applicant’s contract is renewed on a yearly basis. The applicant is not professionally qualified to be appointed on a permanent basis. He referred to page 12 and 14 and explained that the applicant has a higher diploma in education which is only applicable to Abet. GDE requires the applicant to hold a professional teacher qualification also known as B. ED. The applicant holds an advanced certificate in education. Page 29 of “A” is the applicant’s letter of employment effective January 2019 to date which contains an error. The applicant is not employed on a permanent basis. Discussions were held with the applicant on more than one occasion prompting him to acquire the qualification.

ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE

18. In carefully considered the contending versions before me and applicable legal principles.
19. It is trite that where dismissal is placed in dispute, the applicant bears the onus of proving that he has been dismissed. Only after this has been established, does the onus shift to the respondent to prove that the termination is substantively and procedurally fair.
20. It was the applicant’s version that in January 2026, his salary was stopped and the HR Director informed him that his services had been terminated.
21. The applicant did not bring a witness to corroborate this version nor did he present a document proving this contention.
22. Instead, it was common cause that the applicant is gainfully employed by the respondent and that there has been no interruption of service.
23. The applicant conceded that he did not have a professional teacher’s qualification to enable him to be employed on a permanent basis.
24. It was put to the applicant that the respondent afforded him the opportunity to obtain the qualification as early as 2018.
25. The applicant conceded that he has not, to date, obtained the said qualification.
26. It followed that the conversion to a temporary basis does not amount to a dismissal as the applicant is not in possession of the requisite professional teaching qualification required by the GDE to enable a conversion to a permanent appointment.
27. I found that no dismissal has taken place and consequently, that the applicant is not entitled to any relief.

AWARD

28. In the premises, having found that dismissal has not been established, the applicant’s referral to the Council is hereby dismissed.

NASREEN JAJBHAY

ELRC Commissioner
Date: 25 August 2026