26 March 2026 – ELRC318-25/26EC

IN THE EDUCATION LABOUR RELATIONS COUNCIL
Case number: ELRC318-25/26EC

In the matter between

NAPTOSA Eastern Cape obo Ludidi, T Applicant

And

Education Department of Eastern Cape Respondent

Appearances: For the Applicant: Mr. Anton Adams (NAPTOSA)
For the Respondent: Mr. Sandile Nyalambisa
Arbitrator: Thobela Ncetezo
Heard: 27 November 2025 and 17 February 2026
Delivered: 24 March 2026
SUMMARY: An unfair labour practice dispute in terms of section 186(2)(a) of the Labour Relations Act (LRA) arises from the transfer of the Applicant, who is employed as a Circuit Manager. The Applicant applied for and was granted a transfer from the Chris Hani East District to the Amathole East District. However, upon her transfer, she was unable to perform her duties due to alleged resistance and lack of cooperation from several school principals within the receiving district, who were opposed to her transfer.

ARBITRATION AWARD

Details of hearing and representation

The dispute was set down for a face-to-face arbitration held virtually on 27 November 2025 and 17 February 2026. Mr. Anton Adams who is an official of NAPTOSA represented the applicant, Mrs. Tozama Ludidi. Mr. Sandile Nyalambisa who is employed as CES: Employee Relations for EEA, represented the respondent, Education Department of Eastern Cape.
The proceedings which were digitally recorded were conducted in English. The applicant testified under oath.
Both parties did not submit any bundles of documents and only the applicant testified. The respondent did not introduce any witness but submitted closing arguments in writing. Issue to be decided
I am required to decide whether the conduct of the respondent amounts to an unfair labour practice in terms of Section 186(2)(a).

Background to the dispute

The Applicant submitted that she is employed by the Respondent as a Circuit Manager. She applied for a transfer from Chris Hani East to Amathole East. The principals at Amathole East refused to work with her and said she cannot be a Circuit Manager in that district. She submitted that the Respondent’s conduct in effectively removing her from her operational responsibilities, without lawful basis and without affording her procedural fairness, constitutes an unfair labour practice.
The respondent agreed that the transfer of the applicant was within the prescripts of the respondent’s regulations in that she applied for the transfer and she received a letter of appointment but she was rejected by the workforce on the ground. Due to the fact that the principals did not want her in that district she was required to work from home

Survey of evidence and arguments
Applicant’s case

The applicant testified that she is employed at Amathole East as a Circuit Manager. She was appointed in this area on 22 June 2023. Prior to this appointment she was appointed on 1 July 2019 at Chris Hani East., before that she was a principal at Elliotdale in Dutywa. In 2011 she relocated to Cofimvaba District until she was appointed as a circuit manager in 2019.
In 2023 she applied for transfer to Amatole District due to family responsibilities, and it was approved. She was then transferred from Ngcobo Circuit Management Centre (CMC) to Dutywa CMC.
In May 2023, the Head of the Circuit Management Centre (CMC) indicated that he wished to introduce her to the school principals. However, on the morning of the meeting, he informed her that he would merely introduce her and thereafter excuse himself.
The meeting was attended by an organised structure of principals, and she was subsequently added to their WhatsApp group. The meeting proceeded without incident, and she did not observe or experience any concerns at the time.
In July 2023, prior to the reopening of schools for the third term, she requested certain data from the principals’ structure but received no response. She subsequently contacted the Chairperson of the principals’ structure, who informed her that he would persuade them to provide the requested information. The information was thereafter furnished to her.
In July 2023, she lodged a grievance alleging that South African Democratic Teachers Union (SADTU) had prevented her from performing duties assigned to her by the CMC Head. During the grievance meeting, SADTU indicated that they had no issue with her and stated that the principals were the ones who did not want her.
At a subsequent meeting convened by the Respondent and held with the principals on 7 December 2023, one principal stated that they had a problem with the Applicant and did not want her in that circuit. Upon her arrival at that meeting, she observed that certain individuals were leaving.
Another principal stated that they did not want her and that they too sought promotion. A member of SADTU indicated that the post had been promised to a particular group and that the matter surrounding the post was political in nature. After the meeting, the Applicant informed the CMC Head that she was not wanted in the circuit.
Thereafter, she observed a certain degree of cooperation; however, she reported that two or three schools were still non-compliant at the time. The principals who submitted the files left them at the office of the Clerk with instructions that they be forwarded to the Applicant. She subsequently became reluctant to attend meetings, fearing that she would be embarrassed before a larger audience.
She was allocated to the Notinarha Circuit but was not assigned any duties. Mrs Jolam, the District Director, informed her that she would be registered to work from home. In April, she instructed her to return to the office but advised her to refrain from holding meetings with the principals.
The displacement caused her such significant distress that, in July 2024, she began consulting a psychologist. Thereafter, in September 2024, she was admitted to St Mark’s Hospital for treatment of depression.
At a Broad Management Meeting in January 2025, the District Director suggested that she take up a position in the examinations section. She had not applied for the DCES: Examinations post and testified that, given her current state of mind, she would struggle to adapt to a new role and perform effectively. She also expressed concern about the possibility of being rejected in another section. She stated that she is familiar with the duties of a circuit director, has performed satisfactorily in that role since her appointment, and seeks reinstatement as a circuit manager.
Under cross-examination, the Applicant testified that on 18 May 2023, during a principals’ meeting, the CMC Head, Mr Qendu, indicated that he would introduce her, after which she was to preside over the meeting. At the time, she was still serving as a Circuit Manager at the Nonqubela Circuit. She complied with the CMC Head’s instruction. He further stated that the issue may have arisen from the fact that her introduction to the circuit was conducted in a casual manner.
In her grievance, she stated that South African Democratic Teachers Union (SADTU) had a problem with her. She requested that mediation be conducted in an attempt to resolve the issue, as she is not permitted to work as a Circuit Manager at Amathole East. She further indicated that there is no guarantee that she would be treated well if placed in the Examinations Section, as the position would require her to work directly with principals.

Respondent’s case

The Respondent’s representative, Mr. Nyalambisa, stated that he would not be presenting any witnesses. He further acknowledged that the Applicant had complied with all legal requirements to operate within that circuit, but was nevertheless met with violence, and there was no justifiable reason to oppose her appointment.
A meeting was convened with the thirty-two principals who opposed the Applicant resuming her duties as Circuit Manager in the district. They were requested to provide reasons for their opposition but failed to do so.

Closing arguments

The Applicant contended that the removal of her core functions, the diminution of her authority, and the refusal to acknowledge her in her appointed role collectively amounted to a de facto demotion. She was instructed to cease performing her operational duties and was precluded from exercising authority over her circuit, thereby effectively stripping her of substantive managerial functions.
She further argued that Section 3 of the Employment of Educators Act 76 of 1998 vests the power to employ and manage educators in the employer. With that authority comes a reciprocal duty to protect the dignity, authority and functioning of its appointed officials.
The applicant further argued that the respondent cannot abdicate its statutory authority to principals. The objection of principals cannot override a lawful appointment made under statute. To allow subordinate officials to determine whether a duly appointed Circuit Manager may function is a failure of governance and a dereliction of statutory responsibility.
She further argued that the respondent exercised no discernible discretion at all. It capitulated to pressure from principals and effectively sidelined the applicant. That constitutes an unfair demotion in substance, failure to provide a safe and enabling working environment and to protect the applicant’s statutory authority.
It was further argued that the Respondent conceded that the transfer was fair and therefore There is thus no lawful basis for her exclusion from operational duties.
The Applicant stated that she does not seek compensation as primary relief. She seeks restoration of her professional dignity and authority. Given the breakdown of relations in Nonkqubela Circuit, the Respondent’s inability or unwillingness to enforce her authority there and the availability of circuits within Willowvale.
She requested to be placed in a circuit in Willowvale within the Amatole East District as this would restore her status as Circuit Manager, ensure operational functionality. protect the applicant’s dignity, allow the Department to fulfil its statutory obligations.
The respondent stated that it is their firm position that they did not temper with promotion of the applicant as she is still a DCES. She also was not demoted, refused probation or training but there has been a conflict between the Circuit Manager and school principals. The respondent attempted everything on conflict management. It must be borne in mind of everyone that the conflict happened even before the Circuit Manager had an official legal document that transferred her to Amathole East.
The respondent’s strong view is that they cannot consciously place the applicant in a conflict situation. This is in consideration of her gender, safety, health and more other issues. The applicant was offered DCES position at Examinations and Assessment but she turned it down, she had just been rejectionist in approach to all interventions by the employer in the conflict that she started with the Nonkqubela Circuit principals.
The respondent admitted that they have not led any evidence-in-chief due to the refusal of the Nonkqubela Circuit to come and expose facts on underlying causes of the conflict. It was further stated that the Respondent cannot be part any solution that would place the applicant in a dangerous situation.
Analysis of evidence and arguments
The dispute before me was referred in terms of Section 186(2)(a) and therefore the principle of “he who alleges must prove” applies. Therefore, burden to prove that the conduct of the respondent amounts to an unfair labour practice that duty rests with the applicant.
The Section 138(1) of the Act provides that the commissioner may conduct the arbitration in a manner that the commissioner considers appropriate to determine the dispute fairly and quickly but must deal with the substantial merits of the dispute with the minimum of legal formalities. Section 138(7)(a) further provides that the commissioner must issue an arbitration award with brief reasons, signed by that commissioner.
The applicant testified that she is employed by the respondent in the capacity of a circuit manager. She disputes that she has been unable to report for duty in her current district due to opposition from thirty-two principals within that district, who allegedly do not wish her to serve there after her transfer to that district.
In terms of Chapter 3 of the Employment of Educators Act 76 of 1998, as amended (EEA), the authority to appoint and transfer educators’ vests in the employer. Accordingly, the respondent acted within its powers when it approved the applicant’s transfer. The applicant relocated to the district following her application for a transfer. Although the respondent did not present any witnesses, its representative, both in opening and closing statements, acknowledged that the applicant’s transfer was fair but she was her prevented from performing her operational duties.
The applicant did not accept the respondent’s offer to place her in an alternative position, specifically as DCES: Examinations, stating that there was no guarantee she would not face rejection in another section. What is clear and undisputed is that, at the time of her transfer from Chris Hani East, the applicant held the position of Circuit Manager and was transferred in that capacity and as things stand, she still holds the position of a circuit manager, but has not been performing the duties that come with this position after her transfer to Amathole East. The dispute is therefore about her transfer, which transfer is regulated in Collective Agreement 4 of 2016.
The legal remedy sought by the applicant is to be placed in a circuit in Willowvale within the Amatole East District. I am of the view that granting such an order could still leave the applicant aggrieved if the respondent fails, within a reasonable time, to identify and allocate a vacancy at the Willowvale circuit.
The applicant has argued that the removal of her core functions, the stripping of her authority, and the refusal to recognise her in her appointed position amounts to a de facto demotion. I am inclined to agree that these actions materially impact her status and authority. However, she has not been demoted and I believe that I would be acting beyond my capacity if I were to direct the respondent to transfer the Applicant to the Willovale Circuit. Clause B.6.9.2.1 of Collective Agreement 4 of 2016 expressly provides that the determination of the educator’s transfer falls within the prerogative of the employer and as such the dispute before me does not relate to demotion as contemplated in Section 186(2)(a) of the Act but her transfer from one district to the other.
Based on the above reasons, the Applicant has failed to discharge her onus to prove on a balance of probabilities that the conduct of the respondent amounts to unfair labour practice in terms of Section 186(2)(a) of the Act.
I accordingly make the following award;
Award
The application is hereby dismissed.