Runner-up in job interview fails in bid for HOD job after incumbent dies

A lecturer's claim to be entitled to a head of department (HOD) position because he was runner-up in the initial interviews, after the successful candidate died six months into the role, has lost his fight to secure the job.

Goodenough Mhlongo took the higher education department to the Education Labour Relations Council (ELRC), accusing it of unfair labour practices after he was overlooked for the HOD role at a KwaZulu-Natal higher education institution when the successful candidate died.

Mhlongo applied for the vacancy in 2021, was shortlisted and interviewed but another candidate was appointed — and died in 2022 creating a vacancy.

The ruling, delivered on Saturday, explained how Mhlongo argued the department’s policy did not address the appointment of a second candidate in the event of the successful candidate’s death or resignation within six months of appointment.

He said recruitment policies should have been adopted to appoint him after the death of the previous HOD as he was also a suitable candidate. But the department disagreed.

“The [department] argues that they have their own recruitment policy that does not provide for the appointment of the second candidate in the event of the successful candidate vacating the post within six months and stated they did not violate or flout any of their procedures when they advertised and appointed the second respondent,” read the ruling.

The arbitrator heard that Mhlongo and another candidate were interviewed for the post in February as “part of the normal recruitment process”. Mhlongo did not make it.

“Mr Mhlongo expected to be appointed since he was previously found suitable. He cited paragraph 4.1.7 of the [department’s] recruitment policy, arguing that the post should not have been re-advertised as he was a suitable candidate,” read the ruling.

The arbitrator did not name the institution where Mhlongo had been employed since 2008 but revealed it was in KwaZulu-Natal.

“He emphasised that his non-appointment was unfair and inconsistent with broader public sector practices of filling of vacant posts after the passing of the incumbent within six months, further citing that policies are borrowed throughout departments (Public Works and the department of social development) as the legal framework is the same in the public sector,” the ruling read.

“During re-examination, Mr Mhlongo stated there was a violation of [department’s] recruitment policy regarding the timing of advertisements. He noted discrepancies in the list of applicants and argued that the post was re-advertised despite his suitability. He reiterated that he was the second suitable candidate and should have been appointed.”

Rajiv Ramdev testified on behalf of the department, saying Mhlongo had lodged a grievance but a probe had not found merit in his objection.

“He summarised the facts of the dispute and the grievance process, finding no unfair labour practices. Mr Ramdev read from the policy, stating that the applicant was found suitable based on a set of scores determined by the panel. Typically, candidates scoring above 60% are deemed suitable. Mr. Ramdev explained that the panel’s recommendation is sent to HR, which then submits it to the accounting officer.

“He acknowledged that the second candidate scored above 55% but below 60%. The panel typically prefers candidates scoring 60% and above but can review scores. The policy is not specific on scores but provides a guideline for cut-off scores during interviews.”

Ramdev testified that the panel followed the department’s “policies, ensuring the criteria were reasonable to test the quality of candidates”.

“During re-examination, Mr Ramdev referred to the consolidated adverts, explaining that it contained the consolidated adverts of the posts available at the college. He clarified that if it were a re-advertisement, it would be indicated in the subject line to inform applicants. He listed several reasons for re-advertisement: no suitable candidate identified, significant changes to the post, significant time lapse and the need to increase the exposure period to attract more candidates,” the ruling read.

The arbitrator found the department “followed proper procedures and adhered to their recruitment policy in advertising and filling the post”.

“[Mhlongo’s] case does not establish that the employer acted unfairly, arbitrarily, or capriciously. The decisions taken were within the bounds of authority provided by the policies and were justified by valid reasons.

“I find on a balance of probabilities that the respondent did not commit any unfair labour practice in advertising the post and not appointing the applicant. The application is dismissed.

[Mhlongo] is not entitled to any relief.”

TimesLIVE