A woman from Gauteng who believed she had been hired as a bricklaying teacher at a special school lost her unfair dismissal case. This occurred after an arbitrator from the Education Labour Relations Council (ELRC) determined that she was never employed by the Gauteng Department of Education, meaning she could not have been dismissed.
Arbitrator Monde Boyce found that N Makobe failed to prove the existence of an employment relationship between herself and the department.
How the dispute arose
The conflict began after Makobe applied for a bricklaying teaching position at Bosele Special School in Krugersdorp. According to her testimony, she completed her profile on the Gauteng unemployed teachers' website in January 2026, having finished her advanced diploma in technical and vocational education in December 2025. She then applied for several teaching posts and responded to the vacancy advertisement for bricklaying at Bosele Special School.
She was invited for an interview on March 5, 2026, where she was questioned by the school director, Mr. Thage, and members of the School Governing Body (SGB). Makobe informed the arbitrator that she disclosed her qualifications to the committee members and notified them that she had not completed the Postgraduate Certificate in Education (PGCE).
After the interview, an SGB member called her and congratulated her on successfully passing the selection process. She was then asked to return to the school.
Relocation and commencement of work
Makobe testified that upon returning to the school, she was given a document to sign, and the director told her she could start working the next day. Since the notice period seemed too short to her, she requested to start work on March 9, 2026. She stated that she hired a truck and an assistant to transport furniture to Krugersdorp, paid a deposit for accommodation, and commenced duties on March 9.
She worked on March 10 and was among the educators assigned to report to the district office for fingerprinting. However, the following day, the director allegedly informed her that the district office stated she could not be hired because she lacked a PGCE. Makobe then went to the district office, where a human resources employee allegedly informed her that she did not meet the requirements for the position due to her qualifications.
Department contests appointment
The Department raised a preliminary issue at the arbitration, arguing that Makobe was not dismissed because she was never employed by them. The Department's HR witness, Deputy Director of Human Resources Emily Mochuela, explained the hiring and appointment process for positions at the school. She clarified that vacancies are published through the department's database of unemployed teachers after the school notifies HR of the vacancy. After receiving applications, candidates are selected, and recommendations are sent to the district office for quality assurance. Only after the recommendations are approved is an appointment letter issued, and the district director is the authorized person responsible for approving appointments.
Qualification mismatch
The Department also challenged Makobe's qualifications for the position. Mochuela testified that Makobe's academic record showed 108 credits, whereas the minimum requirement for a PGCE was 180 credits. She also stated that the qualification Makobe obtained from STADIO allowed her to teach at a TVET college, not a basic education school. The Department referred to the Personnel Administration Measures (PAM), which set minimum requirements for appointment to a teaching position in a school. The arbitrator also noted that Makobe herself admitted that she had not completed the PGCE, which would allow her to teach in schools under the Basic Education Department.
Document signed by parties is not an appointment letter
A key point in the case was the document Makobe considered her employment contract. Boyce found that it was actually a GDE form that she filled out at the school and which was signed by the director and the SGB chairperson. This was not the final appointment document required to establish an employment relationship. The arbitrator discovered that the form still required signatures from the district HR and the district director, who had the authority to approve appointments. Neither signed it. Boyce concluded that the document represented only one stage of the hiring process and was not an appointment.
Arbitrator finds no dismissal
Boyce stated that Makobe bore the legal burden of proving she was dismissed. According to labour law, the existence of dismissal must be established before the burden shifts to the employer to justify the dismissal. The arbitrator found that Makobe failed to meet this burden. Despite being interviewed, being told she was successful, and being allowed to attend the school, these events did not prove she was appointed by the Gauteng Department of Education. Boyce noted that objective evidence showed she did not meet the requirements for the position, and the necessary appointment process was not completed. The arbitrator concluded that 'dismissal could not have existed' because Makobe was never an employee of the department.
ELRC cannot intervene
Boyce also stated that the ELRC, like the CCMA, is a creature of statute and cannot exercise jurisdiction where it does not exist. He concluded that the fact that the director and SGB interviewed Makobe and told her she was successful did not establish an employment relationship, as they did not have the authority to appoint teachers. Their role was to provide recommendations, while the final appointment had to be approved by the relevant departmental authority. Ultimately, Boyce ruled that Makobe was not dismissed, and that the ELRC did not have jurisdiction to hear her dispute.
