A teacher from the Eastern Cape who contested her exclusion from the process of selection for the position of director received compensation amounting to 351,553.50 rand. This decision was made after the Education Labour Relations Council (ELRC) found that the provincial Department of Education had engaged in unfair labour practice.
The dispute concerned Tantasva Priskila Sikiti, represented by the organization NAPTOSA, and the Eastern Cape Department of Education regarding the appointment of Tandive Lithe to the position of primary school principal at Lujiza.
ELRC member Yolisa Ndzuta ruled that Sikiti had fulfilled her duty by proving the commission of unfair labour practice related to promotion.
Teacher challenged exclusion from candidate list
Sikiti has been employed by the Department of Education since 1993 and served as deputy principal at Lujiza Primary School since 2023. Before Lithe's appointment to this position in April 2026, she also acted as the school principal during the 2024 and 2025 academic years.
She stated that she applied because she met the advertised requirements, had held a management position in the school for over 18 years, and had acted as principal for more than 12 months. Sikiti informed the ELRC that in 2007 she was promoted to Head of Department (HOD) and obtained additional qualifications, including educational management from the University of Pretoria and a leadership certificate from Stellenbosch University.
She argued that she should have been included in the shortlist, especially considering her prior experience acting as principal, and believed her experience and qualifications were more favorable compared to Lithe's.
Panel used criteria not present in the advertisement
During the hearings, it emerged that the selection committee introduced additional selection criteria requiring five years of experience as a principal or deputy principal. Department witnesses admitted that these criteria were not specified in the vacancy advertisement.
School Governing Body member Ntombizanele Dumdum agreed that the applicant's CV and application should have been analyzed more thoroughly. She also acknowledged that Lithe's principal experience was calculated incorrectly.
Another witness, Thembelo Kenke, who served as the committee secretary, admitted that the committee made an error in calculating the five-year experience criterion when applying it to Lithe. She added that with correct application of the criteria, Lithe should also have been eliminated, and the qualification requirements should have led to her exclusion compared to Sikiti's application.
A third witness, Vuyolwetu Mduduma, also confirmed that the selection criteria were not part of the advertised requirements, and that the exclusion of lower-level employees was not mentioned in the bulletin. She characterized the committee's requirement as irrational, as it was not based on experience or qualification.
Department claims teacher did not have automatic right to be listed
The Department of Education insisted that even if Sikiti met the minimum requirements of the advertised position, this did not grant her an automatic right to be included in the shortlist. It argued that the School Governing Body has the right to set criteria for determining which qualified candidates will be interviewed.
The Department also objected to Sikiti citing the provisions of the Personnel Administrative Measures (PAM) document, which stipulates the inclusion of an employee who has acted in the advertised position for 12 months or more. In the department's view, Sikiti's periods of acting capacity could not be aggregated as they occurred within different recruitment processes.
ELRC found the hiring process unfair
However, Ndzuta found that Sikiti was excluded not because she failed to meet the advertised requirements, but because additional experience criteria were introduced during the selection stage, which, according to the ruling, were applied to her unlawfully. It was also established that evidence showed the criteria were applied unfairly against Sikiti and in favour of Lithe, despite department witnesses describing the discrepancies as errors.
ELRC noted that the department's own witnesses testified that if the criteria had been applied correctly, Lithe would also have been eliminated. The ruling also stipulated that the department cannot evade responsibility by relying on its own administrative shortcomings or non-compliance with requirements, especially when its hiring process is governed by the PAM document, Recruitment and Selection Policy, and collective agreements.
Teacher awarded compensation
Although Sikiti demanded compensation equivalent to 12 months, the panel awarded her six months as 'fair and equitable'. The Department of Education is ordered to pay her 351,553.50 rand, calculated based on six months of the director's basic salary, which amounted to 58,592.25 rand per month. The department has three months from the date of the ruling to make the payment. The ELRC stated that this measure is also intended to prevent disruption to school operations and student learning.
