- This topic has 0 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 12 seconds ago by
.
-
Posts
-
In the case of the Department of Education: Gauteng Province vs Makobe (Lex Info 17 August 2026. ELRC case number ELRC97-26/27GP) the employee applied for a post at a school and provided her qualifications. She was then interviewed on 5 March 2026 by the school principal and members of the school governing body. Shortly thereafter she received a phone call from a member of the school governing body congratulating her on her appointment and advising her to visit the school.
She visited the school where the principal asked her to commence work on the very next day, 6 March 2026. She was unable to start that soon but did work at the school on the 10th of March 2026. This was despite the fact that her appointment form had not bene signed by the appropriate authority. Makobe was later told that she could not be appointed because she lacked the appropriate PGCE qualification for the post.
The arbitrator found that Makobe had not been appointed by the school. This finding raises some questions: Firstly, if it was truly essential that Makobe possessed a PGCE qualification in order to be eligible for the post why was she interviewed in the first place?
Secondly, as it was established that Makobe had been asked to start work and did so, was the arbitrator correct in finding that she had not been appointed?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
