Labour Court backs Sassa employee in recruitment dispute

A human resources development practitioner will remain in his position at the South African Social Security Agency (Sassa) after a labour court dispute regarding flawed recruitment processes and the legitimacy of the employee’s qualification. 

At the Labour Court, sitting in Cape Town, Sassa sought to set aside the appointment of the employee after he was employed in the post of Practitioner: Human Development and Transformation.

The recruitment dispute came about after a labour union complained about the employee’s appointment, and an independent investigator was appointed to conduct an investigation into the recruitment process and to make a recommendation regarding any action to be taken. 

Having reached the final phase of recruitment, he was shortlisted with another potential candidate, and on the date of his interview, the employee brought a letter from the institution where he had studied, Northlink College, which recorded that his application for a Diploma in Human Resource Management was submitted to the Department of Higher Education.

Subsequently, the employee was successful in the recruitment and commenced in his position in February 2022. 

According to the independent investigation, the employee and three other candidates used an old Z83 form for their application; however, the advertisement had not stipulated that the new Z83 form be used. The investigation further found that on the closing date of the advertisement, the employee did not have his actual qualification at that time.

The investigation also found that the employee had completed his diploma and was waiting for it to be conferred; he had not misrepresented facts in his application.

The recommendation was that the employee’s appointment be revoked and the recruitment process be started afresh.

In light of this, the employee was issued a letter by Sassa informing him that his appointment was found to be irregular and that he would then be demoted to his previous position, which he held as a budget controller. 

The employee opposed the notification he received, noting that he had not misrepresented himself or his qualifications. He further submitted that, being in the position for 10 months at the time the notice was issued, he had already made financial commitments which could not be reversed.

Acting Judge of the Labour Court, Glen Cassells, said: “The respondent (employee) had completed his qualification but was awaiting his diploma. The applicant (Sassa) was aware of this, and it was advised that he should merely provide an affidavit and his academic record. The applicant was willing to accept the respondent’s appointment on that basis. It is therefore accepted that, despite the respondent not having received his diploma, he met the minimum requirements for the position and that this is not a situation where the applicant was unqualified for the post. 

“Accordingly, the basis upon which the applicant applies to have the respondent’s appointment set aside cannot be said to constitute a defect of such magnitude that it could serve to vitiate the entire appointment process.”

Acting Judge Cassells noted that the employee has worked in his position for more than two years, performing his duties. 

“There is no evidence of any wrongdoing by the applicant; he bears no responsibility for the situation that has arisen, and there is no indication that he has not properly performed his duties. 

“Such a finding will also prejudice the applicant in respect of commencing the recruitment process afresh. The applicant has furthermore not identified any prejudice that it may suffer should the respondent remain in his appointed position.”

chevon.booysen@inl.co.za