An Eastern Cape teacher who was excluded from consideration for a principal position has been awarded R351,553.50 after a labour dispute panel found that the provincial Education Department had subjected her to an unfair labour practice.
- Deputy principal challenged exclusion from principal shortlist
- Shortlisting criteria became the centre of the dispute
- Witnesses acknowledged the criteria were not advertised
- Education Department argued shortlisting was not automatic
- ELRC finds process disadvantaged Sikiti
- Department could not rely on its own recruitment errors
- Teacher awarded six months’ compensation
- What the ruling means for school recruitment
The dispute centred on Tantaswa Priscila Sikiti, a deputy principal at Lujiza Primary School, who challenged the process used to appoint Thandiwe Litye as the school’s principal.
The Education Labour Relations Council (ELRC) found that additional criteria were introduced during the shortlisting process even though they had not appeared in the original job advertisement.
ELRC panellist Yolisa Ndzuta concluded that Sikiti had established that an unfair labour practice relating to promotion had occurred.
Deputy principal challenged exclusion from principal shortlist
Sikiti, who has worked for the Eastern Cape Education Department since 1993, was appointed deputy principal at Lujiza Primary School in 2023.
She had also acted as principal during the 2024 and 2025 academic years, before Litye was eventually appointed to the permanent position in April 2026.
Sikiti argued that she had applied for the post because she satisfied the advertised requirements and had extensive management experience at the school.
Her qualifications included an Education Management qualification from the University of Pretoria and a Certificate of Leadership from the University of Stellenbosch.
She also told the ELRC that she had been promoted to a head of department position in 2007 and had accumulated significant experience in school management.
Her argument was not that acting as principal automatically entitled her to the permanent position, but that her experience and qualifications should at least have allowed her application to be considered during the shortlisting process.
Shortlisting criteria became the centre of the dispute
The key issue before the ELRC was the introduction of an additional experience requirement during the sifting stage.
The selection panel applied a criterion requiring candidates to have five years’ experience as either a principal or deputy principal.
The problem identified during the proceedings was that this requirement had not been included in the original advertisement.
Several witnesses for the department and the selection process acknowledged problems with how the criterion had been applied.
School Governing Body member Ntombizanele Dyumdyum conceded that Sikiti’s curriculum vitae and application should have received more careful consideration.
She also acknowledged that Litye’s experience as a principal had been incorrectly calculated.
Panel secretary Thembela Khenke similarly conceded that an error had been made when calculating Litye’s experience against the five-year criterion.
According to the evidence presented to the ELRC, correctly applying the criterion would have resulted in Litye also being excluded during the sifting process.
Witnesses acknowledged the criteria were not advertised
Another witness, Vuyolwethu Mduduma, confirmed that the additional sifting criteria were not contained in the original advertisement.
The witness also acknowledged that the recruitment bulletin did not state that educators at lower management levels would be excluded.
The undisclosed requirement was described during the proceedings as irrational because it was not based on the qualifications and experience requirements originally communicated to applicants.
These concessions became significant to the ELRC’s assessment of whether Sikiti’s exclusion had been fair.
Education Department argued shortlisting was not automatic
The Education Department disputed Sikiti’s claim that she had been unfairly treated.
Its position was that meeting the minimum requirements in an advertisement did not automatically give an applicant a right to be shortlisted.
The department argued that the School Governing Body and selection panel could use additional criteria to determine which qualifying candidates should proceed to interviews.
It also disputed Sikiti’s reliance on provisions in the Personnel Administrative Measures (PAM) document concerning educators who had acted in an advertised post for at least 12 months.
The department argued that Sikiti’s separate periods of acting as principal could not simply be combined because they occurred during different recruitment processes.
The dispute therefore turned not only on Sikiti’s experience, but on whether the selection panel had lawfully and fairly applied its recruitment criteria.
ELRC finds process disadvantaged Sikiti
Ndzuta ultimately rejected the department’s explanation for Sikiti’s exclusion.
The ELRC found that Sikiti had not been removed from consideration because she failed to meet the requirements contained in the job advertisement.
Instead, the panel had introduced additional experience criteria during the sifting process and then applied those criteria in a manner that disadvantaged her.
The award also found that the evidence pointed to the criteria being applied prejudicially against Sikiti while benefiting Litye.
Importantly, this conclusion came despite witnesses describing some of the problems as errors in calculating experience and applying the criteria.
The panel also considered the fact that department witnesses had acknowledged that Litye would have been excluded had the additional criteria been correctly applied.
Department could not rely on its own recruitment errors
The ELRC further found that the department could not escape responsibility by relying on its own administrative failures.
The recruitment process was governed by the PAM document, the department’s Recruitment and Selection Policy and applicable collective agreements.
The award emphasised the importance of following the rules governing public-sector appointments, particularly where those rules determine how candidates are evaluated and shortlisted.
The finding did not mean that Sikiti was automatically entitled to the principal position.
Rather, the remedy addressed the unfairness in the recruitment process that prevented her application from being properly considered.
Teacher awarded six months’ compensation
Sikiti had sought compensation equivalent to 12 months’ salary.
The ELRC instead awarded her six months’ compensation, describing the amount as “just and equitable” in the circumstances.
The award amounts to R351,553.50, calculated using the entry notch for the principal position of R58,592.25 per month.
The Eastern Cape Education Department has been given three months from the date of the award to make the payment.
The ELRC also considered the potential consequences of a remedy that could interfere with the school’s functioning and the education of learners.
As a result, compensation was ordered rather than a remedy that would disrupt the school’s leadership arrangements.
What the ruling means for school recruitment
The dispute highlights an important principle in public-sector recruitment: selection panels must generally assess applicants against criteria that have been properly communicated and applied consistently.
An employer or selection panel may have discretion when shortlisting candidates, but that discretion does not remove the requirement for a fair and procedurally sound recruitment process.
For educators competing for management positions, the case also demonstrates why the distinction between meeting minimum requirements and being shortlisted matters.
Sikiti’s victory was therefore not an order appointing her as principal. It was a finding that the process through which she was excluded from consideration amounted to an unfair labour practice.
The R351,553.50 compensation award now places a financial consequence on the department’s failure to conduct the recruitment process in accordance with the applicable rules.
