Case Number: ELRC259-24/25 GP
Commissioner: M.A. HAWYES
Date of Award: 21 January 2025

In the ARBITRATION between

SADTU obo Lesiba Betha
(Union/Applicant)

and

Department of Education: Gauteng
(First Respondent)

Mmabatho Riba

(Second Respondent)

AWARD
7.1 The Applicant’s dispute referral is dismissed. The 2nd Respondent is hereby confirmed in her position as the principal of SESS.
7.2 There is no order as to costs.

DETAILS OF HEARING AND REPRESENTATION
1.1 The matter was scheduled for arbitration on the following dates: 16th of August 2024, 21st of August 2024, 25th, 26th and 27th of September 2024, the 16th and 17th of October 2024 and the 14th and 15th of November 2024. The arbitration was also booked for the 3rd and 4 of December 2024 but was finalized on the 3rd of November 2024.
1.2 Mr. M.J Makaleng, a SADTU union official, represented the Applicant.
1.3 Mr. G. Mbonde, a labour relations officer, represented the First Respondent.
1.4 Mr. P. Riba, also a union member and site steward from SADTU, represented the Second Respondent.
1.5 After the completion of evidence, the parties requested an opportunity to submit written closing arguments by the 13th of December 2024.The allotted time for the submission of written closing arguments is normally 7 calendar days. The parties were given 10 calendar days to submit their closing arguments.
1.6 The First and Second Respondent’s submitted their written closing arguments on the 13th of December 2024. On the 14th of December 2024 I received a telephone call from Makaleng requesting that I give him an extension to the 20th of December 2024 for him to submit his written closing arguments. This request was denied and we later agreed to an extension to the 17th of December 2024. Makaleng’s written closing arguments were received on the afternoon of the 17th of December 2024.
1.7 The normal 10 days for me to submit my award will thus run from the 18th of December 2024. I had also requested the ELRC for a 10-day extension over and above the 10 days mentioned in paragraph 1.6 which request was granted.
1.8 This means that I have until the 6th of January 2025 to submit my award.
1.9 Both parties submitted bundles of documents The Applicant’s bundle was marked bundle ‘A’. The Respondents’ two bundles were marked bundle ‘B1 and B2. Detailed notes and a digital recording was made of the entire arbitration process.
1.10 Two interpreters were used during the course of the arbitration to accommodate the language preferences of certain of the witnesses.

ISSUE IN DISPUTE
The Applicant relies upon section 186 (2) (a) of the Labour Relations Act, no 65 of 1995 (as amended) (LRA) in alleging an unfair labour practice on the basis of promotion relating to the Second Respondent’s appointment to the Principal’s post at Soshanguve East Secondary School (SESS).
The Applicant alleges substantive and procedural unfairness. Substantive fairness in that he is the best candidate for the position and procedure in that the appointment was flawed procedurally for reasons that will be detailed and evaluated during the course of the award.

BACKGROUND TO THE ISSUE
3.1 The Respondent employs the Applicant as a Deputy Principal at SESS.
3.2 It is common cause that the process of shortlisting and interviews for the Principal post took place without any irregularities or grievances being lodged with the First Respondent. It was only when the Second Respondent was appointed to the position that the Applicant with the assistance of his trade union lodged an unfair labour practice dispute with the Council.
3.3 It is common cause that after the results of the appointment were made known the members of the School Governing Body disagreed amongst themselves about the scoring of the Applicant and the 2nd Respondent and this resulted in the SGB not forwarding a recommendation to the 1ST Respondent. The 1st Respondent later became involved in an attempt to resolve the impasse that had arisen.

SURVEY OF APPLICANT’S SUBMISSIONS
4.1 The Applicant testified under oath.
4.2 The Applicant testified and gave reasons why he regarded himself as the best candidate for the position.
4.3 He testified, inter alia, that he has the following qualifications, namely a Secondary Teachers Diploma, an Advanced Certificate in Education and a Bachelor of Education (Honours).
4.4 The Applicant testified further that he joined the school on the 1st of September 2011 as a PL1 educator. The school itself was established in January 2011.
4.5 After 2 years the Applicant was promoted to become a department head (PL 2 educator).
4.6 In 2015 he was promoted as deputy principal of the school. (PL 3).
4.7 The Applicant testified that he has 10 years, 6 months experience as a manager in the PL 2 and PL 3 positions.
4.8 The Applicant testified further that he acted as principal at the school from the 1st of June 2023 to the 31st of May 2024.
4.9 He managed to improve the grade 12 results in 2023 under his leadership management in comparison to previous years, from 84.8% to 87.3%. The Applicant also testified that the school results generally improved under his leadership and management.
4.10 During cross examination the Applicant deposed that the 2nd Respondent had never served as a departmental head at the school. It is tradition that for one to become a deputy principal they must have at least served as a departmental head.
4.11 The Applicant also stated that his degree B.Ed. (Honours) is higher that the B. Tech degree that the 2nd Respondent had.
4.12 The Applicant testified that the 2nd Respondent was his colleague. They served together at the school until the 2nd Respondent was seconded by the district office, reporting directly to the district director’s office on matriculant related results, general interventions and the SIIP camps.
4.13 It was argued that since the 2nd Respondent was working closely with the district director (special project unit) before her appointment and that her appointment to the SESS principal post was biased.
4.14 The Applicant made various concessions during the course of cross examination which concessions will be discussed in my evaluation of the evidence.
4.15 When it came to the question of the SGB to decide upon a recommended candidate, a number of SGB members did not support the appointment of the 2nd Respondent. These SGB members testified at the arbitration proceedings and they were Mrs. Rampa Obuhle, the erstwhile SGB secretary, Mrs. Tlou Nthabiseng, the then SGB chairperson and Mr. R.A Thwaele, a parent representative on the SGB.
4.16 Obuhle testified, inter alia, that the SGB members did not agree on the appointment of the 2nd Respondent. The interview file was taken by SGB members Mrs. Leshika and Lebang without her consent.
4.17 Obuhle testified that no ratification meeting took place as the SGB members disagreed with which candidate should be recommended to the 1st Respondent. There were specific disagreements on the scores allocated to each of the top two candidates.
4.18 Obuhle described the ratification meeting as tense as the SGB members did not want to listen to each other.
4.19 She was accused that her minutes were inaccurate by Mr. Matshaba (school financial officer) and she was bullied and ridiculed by Ms. Rampa and Ms. Lebang who threw tantrums and raised their voices loudly.
4.20 Obuhle also testified that during the interview process the circuit manager (Mr. M. Rammuki), conducted an off-record point of view for everyone on the interview room to speak out their fair observations on which candidate did their best. Then the scores would be recorded. When everyone expressed their views the 2nd Respondent was not one of the top three mentioned. The eventual tallied results were very different.
4.21 It is common cause that the next witness Ms. Tlou Nthabiseng was appointed as an usher during the course of the recruitment process. She was employed as an administrator as part of her day job.
4.22 As the erstwhile chairperson of the SGB she deposed that the scoring was not fair during the interviews as per the report given by the other panel members.
4.23 She testified further that she refused to sign the interview file because the SGB could not agree on the recommendation list.
4.24 Nthabiseng testified that because the SGB members were not all on speaking terms with each other she wrote a letter to the district director (Ms. E. Mooke) advising her about the situation.
4.25 The district director responded that the SGB must submit the interview files with minutes indicating whether the SGB agreed or disagreed with ratification of the 2nd Respondent.
4.26 Nthabiseng testified that at the ratification meeting the SGB members could not agree and that the minutes that were subsequently issued were not a true reflection of what actually happened at the meeting.
4.27 Nthabiseng also testified that no voting took place during the course of the ratification meeting.
4.28 Nthabiseng testified further that as an usher at the interview process, she would bring the candidates in, remain inside, listen to the interviews and then usher the candidate out and bring the next candidate in.
4.29 The final witness for the Applicant was Mr. Thwaele who worked at the National Prosecuting Authority as a translator.
4.30 He had been an erstwhile SGB member for some 12 years.
4.31 He testified that the interview process was not fair, transparent or honest.
4.32 Thwaele testified further that the appointed candidate was not prepared for the interviews. The scores given did not match her performance before the interview panel.
4.33 Thwaele testified that the Applicant performed outstandingly well during the course of the interview process.
4.34 Thwaele confirmed that the circuit manager had conducted an informal discussion with the interview panelists before the formal scoring was done and the 2nd Respondent’s name was not mentioned.
4.35 Thwaele reiterated that he cares about the interests of learners but proper procedure needs to be followed to appoint the principal of the school.
4.36 During the day of the purported ratification meeting, ratification was not done due to disagreements between the SGB members and this was not captured in the subsequent minutes of the ratification meeting.
4.37 Thwaele emphasized that the purported ratification minutes had the signature of Mrs. Lebang (secretary) and Mrs. Leshika as chairperson. Mrs. Leshika was not given permission to sign the ratification minutes.
4.38 Thwaele also noted that Leshika was chairperson of the interview panel and not chairperson of the SGB.

SURVEY OF RESPONDENTS EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT
5.1 The Respondent led the evidence of six witnesses.
5.2 The first witness was Ms. M. Gcabashe. She testified that she was a union official from NATU and attended the interview process in question as an observer.
5.3 She testified that SADTU was also represented at the interviews by the Applicant’s current trade union representative (Makaleng).
5.4 Gcabashe testified that the interviews went well and nobody raised any objections about the outcomes, including SADTU. She testified further that if there were any irregularities, her union and SADTU could have raised an objection or lodged a grievance.
5.5 The next witness was Mr. S. Molapo, one of the panelists of the interview panel. He testified that when the SGB formed a panel no one raised objections to the members on the interview panel.
5.6 Molapo testified further that SGB members Lebang, Leshika, Ngoveni, Moteane, Mashaba and himself supported the interview outcomes whilst Obuhle, Nthabiseng and Thwaele opposed them (6-3).
5.7 Molapo testified that the circuit manager, Mr. Rammuki on instructions from the district director, had convened a meeting of the SGB on the 22nd of December 2023 to clear the way for an appointment of the vacant principal’s post to be made before the advent of the New Year.
5.8 Obuhle was phoned and put on speakerphone and she subsequently gave proxy to Ms. Lebang to sign all the minutes.
5.9 He testified that Nthabiseng, the erstwhile chairperson of the SGB, was an usher at the interview process and was outside when candidates were interviewed. All other witnesses for the 1st and 2nd Respondent’s corroborated Molapo in this regard.
5.10 Molapo testified further that the ratification meeting scheduled did not materialize because one, Mr. Mashiane, who was supposed to advise the SGB on ratification, did not attend the meeting due to confidentiality reasons.
5.11 The letter written by Nthabiseng was not mandated by the SGB and written of her own accord.
5.12 At the meeting convened by Rammuki on the 23rd of December 2023 it was cordial and no bullying took place. Everyone was given a chance to express their views.
5.13 Later at a meeting called by the district director in 2024, when Nthabiseng as chairperson of the SGB, refused to sign the interview minutes, Mooke phoned someone from HR to seek advice. When the director made the call, the phone was on speakerphone. The person on the other side advised that if the majority of the present SGB members supported the interview outcomes, then one member of the supporting SGB could sign the minutes. The majority of present SGB members supporting the appointment of the 2nd Respondent were 4 and those supporting the Applicant were 3. Ms. Leshika then agreed to sign the relevant documents for the 22nd of December 2023 and others with the intention that the signatures would be of retrospective effect.
5.14 Molapo testified that at the interview meeting Nthabiseng was an usher and remained outside when the candidates were interviewed. Her testimony in this regard was corroborated by Ms. Lebang, Leshika, Mr. Kemp and Rammuki.
5.15 The next witness, Ms. Lebang, testified that she was a member of the SGB and served as a panelist on the interview committee.
5.16 Lebang testified inter alia that only three of the SGB members did not support the appointment of the 2nd Respondent, namely Obuhle, Thwaele and Nthabiseng. Moteane, Matshaba, Ngoveni, Leshika, Matshaba and herself were the SGB members that supported the interview outcomes.
5.17 At a meeting convened by the district director Mooke in April 2024, Mooke asked Nthabiseng to sign the interview minutes and she refused to do so.
5.18 The next witness was Mr. C. Ngoveni and he testified that he was an SGB member and after examining the scoring of the interview panel he agreed that the 2nd Respondent was the best candidate for the position. As a mathematics teacher he believed the numbers hence he supported the interview outcomes.
5.19 Ngoveni corroborated the essence of the evidence given by the Respondent witnesses that had come before him.
5.20 The next witness, Ms. M. Leshika, testified, inter alia, that she was the treasurer on the SGB and chairperson of the interview panel. She too gave similar evidence to all the witnesses before her that described who they supported for the appointment of the 2nd Respondent.
5.21 She testified that at Rammuki’s meeting on the 22nd of December 2023, Obuhle was on loudspeaker and gave Ms. Rampa the power to sign the interview minutes.
5.22 Leshika, with reference to Bundle B1, page 60 referred to the meeting scheduled for the SGB ratification of the interview panel results on the 21st of November 2023 and testified that the meeting did not take place because Mr. Mashiane from the district office did not attend due to confidential reasons. The next scheduled meeting to deal with the impasse raised by disagreements among the SGB members as to who should be appointed to the principal’s post was scheduled by Rammuki on the 22nd of December 2023.
5.23 The next witness was Mr. C. Kemp, a cluster leader (ISDO) at the local district office. His duties, amongst others, was to monitor and support the school SESS and others.
5.24 Kemp testified that he was a panelist on the interview panel to appoint a principal at the school. He attended the panelist selection SGB meeting on the 19th of October 2023 (see Bundle B2, page 96) and he implored the SGB to ensure that the school had a principal at the beginning of 2024.
5.25 He testified further that the interview results reflected how each panelist scored the candidates and the results were fair.
5.26 He testified that no objections were raised by the unions and referred to clause 10.9 of ELRC Collective Agreement no 1 of 2021 which deals with the recruitment and placement procedures for educators at schools.(See Bundle B1, page 83). This gave the unions the opportunity to raise objections if there were any irregularities noted during the shortlisting and/or interviews and no objections were raised.
5.27 Kemp testified further that the chairperson of the SGB does not make decisions unilaterally and acts on a mandate from the SGB.
5.28 Kemp addressed the issue of the non-signature by the unions of the interview minutes and supported the earlier testimony of Gcabashe that the non-signature of minutes did not prevent appointments being legitimately made.
5.29 The next witness was Mr. M. Rammuki, a circuit manager at the district office and the appointed resource person on the interview panel. His corroboration for earlier Respondent witness included the testimony that no objections were raised by the unions during the interview process and that the results of the interview scoring of candidates were fairly conducted. They represented a true reflection of how the interviews went.
5.30 Rammuki testified that before the scoring took place, he asked for the panel to reveal their three top candidates. All the panel members with the exception of Thwaele had the 2nd Respondent, the Applicant or one Selolo on their lists.
5.31 Rammuki emphasized that his request was an off-record exercise and that the final written scores were decisive in determining the positions that the candidates achieved.
5.32 Rammuki, along with the rest of the Respondent witnesses confirmed that Nthabiseng was an usher at the interview proceedings and remained outside during the interview of each candidate. After a candidate left the room Nthabiseng would come in to check with them if they were ready for the next candidate.
5.33 He was responsible for convening the meeting of the 22nd of December 2023 with the SGB at the district director’s request. The meeting took place after the First Respondent had closed for the festive season and many staff were already on leave and not available to attend meetings. Obuhle was one of those individuals.
5.34 Rammuki testified that he phoned Obuhle and put her on loudspeaker for everyone to hear. Obuhle gave proxy for Ms. Rampa to sign the minutes on her behalf. Rammuki’s testimony implied that Rampa had authority to sign as secretary for the minutes of other meetings of the SGB retrospectively.
5.35 The final witness to testify for the Respondents’ was district director Ms. E. Mooke.
5.36 She identified the document at Bundle A, page 2 as being a letter sent to her by the erstwhile chairperson of the SGB, Ms. Nthabiseng complaining about the alleged irregularities committed during the interviews.
5.37 Mooke identified the document at Bundle A, page 3 as her response to the SGB chairperson wherein she instructed Nthabiseng to submit the file with all the minutes so that she could study the file and establish the veracity of Nthabiseng’s allegations. The file was never sent.
5.38 As a result, she dispatched Rammuki to intervene and come up with solutions and hence Rammuki convened the meeting on the 22nd of December 2023.
5.39 Mooke identified the letter at B1, page 36, as a letter dated the 12th of March 2024 that she wrote to HOD to inform him that the SGB chairperson refused to sign the recommendation letter for the appointment of the 2nd Respondent.
5.40 She identified the letter at B1, page 37, as a letter from the Director of Recruitment and Selection dated the 27th of March 2024 who required her to intervene and put the required system in place to ensure the SGB signed. The Director returned the file to her.
5.41 Mooke testified finally that she convened a consultative meeting with the SGB. In the meeting the majority supported the interview outcomes. She asked Nthabiseng to sign but she refused. She then phoned the HR Director who advised her that if the majority were in support of the interview outcomes, one member of the SGB could sign the recommendation file and the minutes. That is how Ms. Leshika signed all the relevant documentation retrospectively as chairperson of the SGB and how the appointment of the 2nd Respondent was ultimately made.

ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT
6.1 The Applicant bears the onus of proving that the 2nd Respondents appointment to the principal post at Soshanguve Secondary School is substantially and procedurally unfair.
6.2 To prove substantive unfairness the Applicant must prove on a balance of probabilities that he is unequivocally the best candidate for the position.
6.3 The following facts are common cause. The Applicant has the following qualifications, namely a Secondary Teachers Diploma, an ACE certificate in Mathematical Literacy and Bachelor of Education (Honours) degree.
6.4 The 2nd Respondent also has a Secondary Teachers Diploma, a Bachelor of Arts (BA) degree and a Bachelor of Technology Management.
6.5 Both the Applicant and the 2nd Respondent were appointed as deputy principals at the school in 2015.
6.6 The Applicant has been at the school from its inception in 2011 and the Applicant had held the position of head of department at the school prior to his appointment as deputy principal, which the 2nd Respondent had not.
6.7 The 2nd Respondent started teaching in 1997 and the Applicant in 2006.
6.8 The Applicant conceded during cross examination that he was treated fairly during the interviews and that had he been treated unfairly he would have lodged a grievance.
6.9 The Applicant conceded during cross examination that the 2nd Respondent had equivalent qualifications to him, similar experience levels and that the 2nd Respondent had just prior to the recruitment process been appointed as Coordinator of the Secondary Schools Intervention Project which required her to manage and support all the schools in the district, including SESS, with curriculum delivery from grade 8 to 12.
6.10 Makaleng argued that the 2nd Respondent’s appointment by the district director as a coordinator was proof of bias. I find that there is no evidence to support such an assertion.
6.11 The Applicant and the rest of his witnesses did not dispute the applicability of clause 6.2.20 (b) of the GDE Recruitment and Selection Policy found at Bundle A, page 27, that requires a determination whether females in principal posts are underrepresented and thus deserving of a higher weighting when considering these appointments.
6.12 I find that the Applicant and the 2nd Respondent have similar qualifications and experience levels. The Applicant is not the standout candidate as he would have me believe.
6.13 Secondly it is undisputed that the females are underrepresented in principal posts in the district. I find that the decisive motivation for the appointment of the 2nd Respondent was to meet pressing equity considerations.
6.14 I find that the appointment of the 2nd Respondent was thus substantively fair.
6.15 The question of procedural fairness relates to the fairness of the processes that lead to the 2nd Respondent’s appointment.
6.16 It is common cause that the SGB must recommend a suitable candidate to the 1st Respondent for appointment and in this instance they did not do so.
6.17 The person responsible for this failure was the erstwhile chairperson of the SGB. Ms. Nthabiseng allowed her personal feelings to interfere with her duties as the chairperson of the SGB. I find that there is no evidence of unfairness in the way the respective candidates were selected and scored by the legitimately appointed interview committee.
6.18 It is common cause that Nthabiseng had support among certain members of the SGB for her views but it is equally common cause that at no stage did the majority of the SGB support her stance. I find that decisions of the SGB are not required to be unanimously made. As an aside it was evident during the course of the arbitration that a number of witnesses from both sides were of the erroneous view that the word unanimous meant majority when it in fact meant all. This is a common mistake and has no bearing on the way the scoring took place.
6.19 The Respondent’s witnesses all corroborated that at the first meeting of the SGB the majority supported the appointment of the 2nd Respondent. That was also the case at the district director’s consultative meeting.
6.20 Ms. Obuhle testified inter alia that Leshika and Lebang took the interview file without permission. This is probably a misrepresentation of what happened since it was evident that Nthabiseng and her minority supporters were intent on preventing the file from being sent to the district director and were content to withhold access to the file.
6.21 I find that the minority SGB members made it difficult for the majority SGB members to access the interview file and forced them to resort to alternative methods to obtain access to the said file which was stored in Obuhle’s locked office.
6.22 Obuhle was also responsible for lying about the composition of those SGB members who did not support the appointment of the 2nd Respondent. I accept the testimony of all the Respondent witnesses that at the first meeting of the SGB a majority of 6-3 supported the appointment of the 2nd Respondent and at the director’s consultative meeting the majority was 4-3 in favour of the 2nd Respondent’s appointment based upon the SGB members present at the meeting.
6.23 I also accept the evidence of the majority of the Respondent witnesses that Nthabiseng, as an usher, remained outside during the course of the interviewing of the respective candidates. Rammuki as a circuit manager, for example, was an independent witness who would have no reason to lie about where Nthabiseng was during the course of the interviews. Nthabiseng on the other hand (as an ardent supporter for the Applicant to be appointed to the position) clearly had her own agenda and sought to strengthen her hand by testifying that she heard all the interviews and was in a position to evaluate which of the Applicant or the 2nd Respondent were the better of the two candidates. I find that she was not present when the interviews took place and thus, she is in no position to comment on who the better candidate was on the day of the interviews.
6.24 I find further that of the three SGB members that did not support the appointment of the 2nd Respondent only one, namely Thwaele was a scorer on the interview panel. The rest were not.
6.25 It is common cause that none of the unions raised any objections as to the way the interview process was handled. This was an interview process where the current Applicant union representative (Makaleng) was present. Makaleng argued that there was nothing wrong with the union raising an objection after the recruitment process and I agree but from an evidential perspective, the fact that he did not raise an objection during the course of the recruitment process makes it probable that there were no irregularities in the first place. The union representative from NATU supports this contention and I conclude that the way that the interview process unfolded was free of any irregularities and unfairness.
6.26 It is common cause that the stability of schools is important and it is certainly in the best interests of the learners at the school to achieve this. If a school does not have a permanent head (principal) it inevitably leads to a measure of instability and uncertainty. If there are warring factions for the principal’s post amongst educators and parents alike then that uncertainty is exacerbated.
6.27 As the chairperson of the SGB Nthabiseng should have put her personal feelings aside and acted maturely in the best interests of the SGB as a whole by accepting the majority decision and signing the required paperwork to expedite the process.
6.28 In the face of a clear majority of the SGB who supported the 2nd Respondent’s appointment Nthabiseng wrote to the district director and falsely alleged irregularities in the interview process. Not only did Nthabiseng act without a mandate from the rest of the SGB but she also misrepresented the correct state of affairs to the district director.
6.29 Makaleng argued on behalf of the Applicant that the normal recruitment process was not followed since there was no recommendation made by the SGB to the district director and most of the minutes were not signed by the designated appointees but only signed retrospectively by SGB members that were not appointed to the positions that they signed for. Makaleng seemed to suggest that the recruitment process should be returned to the interview committee and SGB for an effective rerun of the process.
6.30 I find that it would be a time-wasting exercise given the clear need to appoint a principal to the school by 2024 and the dysfunction that prevailed in the SGB at the time. The 1st Respondent through its senior managers acted in the best interests of the school and adopted a process that was consultative and amounted to a work around of Nthabiseng’s blatant refusal to allow the process to complete.
6.31 I find that the 1st Respondent gave Nthabiseng every opportunity to sign the minutes recommending the 2nd Respondent for the position of principal. I reiterate that Nthabiseng and her minority cohorts on the SGB were responsible for the SGB failing, without good reason, to make a recommendation of a properly selected candidate in the first place
6.32 I find that the 1st Respondent’s workaround amounts to substantial compliance with the rules regulating the recruitment processes and a legitimate attempt to deal directly with the dysfunction of SGB’s past meetings and minutes.
6.33 Makaleng’s argument that minutes cannot be signed retrospectively is a legal technicality that seeks to delay the appointment process even further and is accordingly rejected as is his argument that shortcomings in the minutes themselves render an otherwise legitimate and fair recruitment process unfair.
6.34 The Applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the way that the 1ST Respondent conducted its enforced adapted ratification process by relying upon a majority vote of the SGB was unfair. Likewise, the Applicant has failed to prove that there were other viable alternatives to the process that the 1st Respondent followed to effectively ensure that the SGB were consulted prior to the appointment of a principal at SESS.
6.35 The Applicant also failed to prove that the retrospective signatures on SGB minutes were unlawfully obtained.
6.36 In conclusion I find that all the issues that arose in this matter were engineered by the minority dissenting members of the SGB and they should not claim unfair procedure when they themselves were the authors of the delays and confusion and forced the 1st Respondent to consider other means to legitimize the recruitment process within tight time constraints.

7. AWARD
   7.1 The Applicant’s dispute referral is dismissed. The 2nd Respondent is hereby confirmed in her position as the principal of SESS.
   7.2 There is no order as to costs.