31 July 2026 – ELRC158-26/26GP

Commissioner: Nasreen Jajbhay
Case No: ELRC158-26/26GP

Date of Award: 31 July 2026

In the ARBITRATION between:

SIPHUMELELE KHUMALO APPLICANT

and

GAUTENG DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION RESPONDENT

Union/Applicant’s representative: In person

Respondent’s representative: Mr Manas

DETAILS OF HEARING AND REPRESENTATION

The dispute was referred to the Education Labour Relations Council, hereinafter (“Council”) by the applicant, Ms Khumalo challenging her unfair dismissal.
The applicant was present and was unrepresented.
The respondent was represented by labour relations officer, Mr Manas.
Parties concluded a signed pre-arbitration minute.
Parties submitted written closing argument by agreement.

ISSUE TO BE DECIDED

I am required to decide whether the applicant was dismissed, and if so, whether her termination was substantively fair. I am further required to pronounce on the appropriate remedy, if applicable.

BACKGROUND

The applicant was employed as an educator on the 4th November 2025. The applicant was dismissed on the 12th December 2025. She was remunerated at a monthly salary of R43 651.72. The applicant reinstatement as her primary remedy.

SURVEY OF SUBMISSIONS

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 pleadings adduced. I am required to provide a summary and not a verbatim record of the submissions presented.

APPLICANT’S SUBMISSIONS

The applicant relied on oral and documentary evidence in support of it’s case. The applicant’s bundle was marked and referred to as “A” for ease of reference. The applicant testified inter alia that, she was previously a grade head. She left her permanent role to join the respondent. Her termination is unfair as she was promised by the principal, Galane, that the post was permanent. She was presented with a number of documents on the 4th November 2025. The contract was labelled temporary/permanent contract. The contract was due to expire on the 25th December 2026. She appended her signature to the contract. She was called to the principal’s office, advised to do a proper handover and tender her resignation to Myriad Cosmos City. She was called back to the office with SMT was there. She was then advised that the posts were frozen and she would only be required to work for two months. She was promised that she would be called back after the 2 months lapsed once the respondent released the posts. On the 1st December 2025, she was required to sign a contract ending 25th December 2025. The date looked as though it was scratched out. She affixed her signature to the contract. She was required to re-submit her documents which she did. On the 12th December 2025, the principal told the staff members that December 2025 would be the last month of her employ. She however promised that once the post had been released, she would be recalled. She was not paid her salary for December 2025. She received her salary in February 2026. The post was advertised on the 28th April 2026. She applied for the post. She was not called back to work.

RESPONDENT’S SUBMISSIONS

The respondent relied on oral and documentary evidence. The respondent’s bundle was marked and referred to as “B” for ease of reference. Doctor Charlotte Galane, principal, the applicant was employed as a temporary educator for a period of 2 months. She denied promising the applicant permanent employment. When the school’s reopened in October 2025, it was brought to her attention that two posts had been advertised. The SGB indicated that interviews were to be conducted. She contacted HR and indicated that this was not the database for Cosmo City Primary no. 1. There was a mistake made. They completed the GDE 79 forms. These forms were submitted. They received the data base on the 27th October 2025. The SGB was notified. SGB gave them a go-ahead to run the process. On the 29th October 2025 they shortlisted for Mathematics and English. The interviews were held on the 3rd November 2025. The applicant was interviewed for English. The applicant was called to sign the GDE 1 forms. All temporary educators are required to complete this form. This form was submitted to HR. She received guidance from HR. She was referred to Circular 3 of 2025. The document clearly provided that the temporary post would end on the 31st December 2025. She drew the applicant and Kanyile to this clause. The candidates had the right to accept or reject the post. She called the SMT members. On the 8th January 2026, the applicant contacted her regarding her pay. She requested the applicant’s identity number, which was provided. The applicant confirmed that she was paid on the 5th February 2026. The district sends them growth posts. The school qualified for 2 growth posts running from April 2026 to December 2026. One post was for foundation phase and the second for languages. The post was advertised in April 2026. The shortlisting and interviews did not take place. The posts have not been filled.
Nelisiwe Mashazi, assistant HR director, testified inter alia, the applicant was issued with a GDE 1 form which stipulates that the contract was fixed for 2 months. Growth posts expired on the 31st December 2025. Growth posts are allocated on account of the number of learners. In January 2026, the number of learners is counted. Two growth posts were allocated and due to end in December 2026. The applicant’s contract stating that the contract was fixed from the 1st November 2025 – 31st December 2025. There was an error made on the form capturing 2026 which was scratched out.

ANALYSIS OF SUBMISSIONS

In rendering my determination, I had credence to the contending versions, applicable legal principles and candor and demeanor of witnesses.
The respondent produced a temporary duration contract of employment. The applicant conceded that she affixed her signature to this contract. The contract clearly stipulated that it was temporary in nature and was due to end on the 25th December 2025. The applicant’s version that she was promised permanent employment verbally, was unsupported. Instead, the best evidence before me was the documentary evidence (the signed contract of temporary employment) which was both accepted and signed by the applicant. It is trite that the applicant bears the onus of proving that she had been dismissed. Since the contract expired by effluxion of time, the existence of dismissal was not established.

AWARD