Gauteng teacher loses unfair dismissal case after arbitrator finds she was never appointed

Gauteng teacher's claim of unfair dismissal fails after appointment dispute.

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.

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.

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.

The department raised a preliminary issue at the arbitration, arguing that Makobe had not been dismissed because she had never been employed by it.