The KwaZulu-Natal education department has been ordered to pay six months’ compensation to a senior educator after an arbitrator found that the department committed an unfair labour practice during a principal appointment process.
In an arbitration award issued last month, the Education Labour Relations Council (ELRC) ruled that the department failed to prove that Liesl Hastings was given a fair opportunity to compete for the position of principal at Veldenvlei Primary School in Richards Bay.
Hastings had applied for the principal post that was advertised in 2024. However, she was not shortlisted and another candidate was appointed on June 2 2025.
Hastings contended that she was the most suitable candidate for the position. At the time of application, she had 27 years and 10 months experience in education, of which 21 years and three months were managerial, and close to 10 years were served as a school principal. The appointed candidate had 12 years’ teaching experience, of which, seven years and eight months were managerial.
Hastings’ case was that she was not appointed despite being the best candidate given the inherent skills and institutional knowledge she possessed. The other candidate did not possess the same or similar skills, yet she was appointed.
When requesting bundles of documents pertaining to the matter from the department, it was discovered that certain relevant documents had gone missing from the school.
The department provided a written affidavit from the school to support this allegation.
“Such a discovery is of grave concern, considering that the school is the custodian of such documents and is entrusted with the safekeeping thereof,” arbitrator Ntombizonke Mbili said in an award made on January 12.
Mbili said no reasonable or justifiable explanation was given by the school how, when or why these documents could not be accounted for.
Mbili said the employer was responsible for acknowledging receipt of all applications received within the circuit. Hastings did not receive such an acknowledgement either.
The (department) failed to demonstrate that (Hastings) was given a fair opportunity to compete for the post.
— ELRC arbitrator Ntombizonke Mbili
“No evidence exists on the record to show that the applicant’s CV was received by the panel, that it was considered, or that the scores attributed to the applicant were derived from an objective assessment of submitted materials.”
The ELRC said the department, as custodian of promotion records, failed to retain and produce documents necessary to demonstrate that Hastings’ application had been properly processed and considered.
“The (department) failed to demonstrate that (Hastings) was given a fair opportunity to compete for the post,” Mbili ruled.
She said due to the unavailability of documents, the department failed to support its decision not to shortlist Hastings and to prove that its assessment was rational and fair.
“To this end the (Hastings’) assertion that the process was flawed remains unchallenged and must stand. The (department) has further failed to provide reason(s) on why (she) was not shortlisted and therefore interviewed.”
While Mbili accepted that there was no automatic right to promotion, she emphasised that employees were entitled to a fair opportunity to compete.
She said the department’s inability to explain why Hastings was not shortlisted or interviewed weighed heavily against it.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.