A Gauteng woman who believed she had been appointed to teach bricklaying at a special school has lost her unfair dismissal case after an Education Labour Relations Council (ELRC) arbitrator found that she was never employed by the Gauteng Department of Education and therefore could not have been dismissed.
Arbitrator Monde Boyce found that N Makobe failed to prove that an employment relationship existed between her and the department.
Makobe believed she had secured the teaching post
The dispute arose after Makobe applied for a bricklaying teaching position at Bosele Special School in Krugersdorp.
According to her evidence, she had completed her profile on the Gauteng unemployed teachers website in January 2026 after completing an Advanced Diploma in Technical and Vocational Training in December 2025. She subsequently applied for several teaching positions and responded to an advert for a bricklaying post at Bosele Special School.
She was invited to an interview on March 5, 2026, where she was interviewed by the school’s principal, Mr Thage, and members of the School Governing Body (SGB).
Makobe told the arbitration that she disclosed her qualifications to the interview panel and informed them that she had not completed her Post Graduate Certificate in Education (PGCE).
After the interview, she said, an SGB member called her and congratulated her on being successful. She was then asked to return to the school.
She moved to Krugersdorp and started working
Makobe testified that when she returned to the school, she was given a document to sign and was told by the principal that she could start working the following day.
Because she considered the notice too short, she requested to start on March 9, 2026. She said she hired a truck and a helper to move her furniture to Krugersdorp, paid a deposit for accommodation and reported for duty on 9 March.
She worked on March 10 and was among educators instructed to report to the district office to have their fingerprints taken.
However, the next day, the principal allegedly informed her that the district office had said she could not be employed because she did not have a PGCE.
Makobe subsequently went to the district office, where she was allegedly told by an HR official that she did not qualify for the position because of her qualifications.
Department disputes appointment
The department raised a preliminary issue at the arbitration, arguing that Makobe had not been dismissed because she had never been employed by it.
The department’s HR witness, Assistant Director: Human Resources Management Emely Mochela, explained the recruitment and appointment process for school-based posts.
She said vacancies are advertised through the department’s unemployed educator’s database after the school notifies the HR office of a vacancy. Once applications are received, candidates are shortlisted and recommendations are sent to the district office for quality assurance.
Only after the recommendations have been approved is an appointment letter issued. The delegated authority responsible for approving appointments is the district director.
Qualifications did not meet requirements
The department also disputed Makobe’s qualifications for the position.
Mochela testified that Makobe’s academic record showed 108 credits, whereas the minimum requirement for the PGCE was 180 credits.
She further said the qualification Makobe obtained from STADIO qualified her to teach at a TVET college rather than at a basic education school.
The department relied on the Personnel Administrative Measures (PAM), which set the minimum requirements for appointment to school-based educator posts.
The arbitrator also noted that Makobe herself had acknowledged that she had not completed the PGCE that would have qualified her to teach at schools falling under the Department of Basic Education.
Signed document not appointment letter
A key issue in the case was the document Makobe regarded as her employment contract.
Boyce found that the document was in fact a GDE form that she completed at the school and which was signed by the principal and SGB chairperson.
It was not the final appointment document required to establish an employment relationship.
The arbitrator found that the form still needed to be signed by the district human resources section and the district director, who had the delegated authority to approve appointments.
Neither had signed it.
Boyce said the document therefore represented only one step in the recruitment process and did not amount to an appointment.
Arbitrator finds no dismissal
Boyce said Makobe had the legal burden of first proving that she had been dismissed.
Under the Labour Relations Act, the existence of a dismissal must be established before the burden shifts to an employer to justify the dismissal.
The arbitrator found that Makobe had failed to discharge that burden.
Although she had been interviewed, told she was successful and allowed to report to the school, these events did not establish that she had been appointed by the Gauteng Department of Education.
Boyce said the objective evidence showed that she did not meet the requirements for the position and that the required appointment process had not been completed.
“Dismissal could not exist” because Makobe was never an employee of the department, the arbitrator found.
ELRC can’t interfere
Boyce said the ELRC, like the CCMA, is a creature of statute and cannot assume jurisdiction where it does not have one.
He found that the fact that the principal and SGB had interviewed Makobe and told her she had been successful did not establish an employment relationship because they did not have the authority to appoint educators.
Their role was to make recommendations, while the final appointment had to be approved by the appropriate departmental authority.
Boyce ultimately ruled that Makobe had not been dismissed and that the ELRC lacked jurisdiction to arbitrate her dispute.
