The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration recently ordered the CPUT to pay Lungi Sosibo more than R284 000 in compensation.
When an associate professor lodged a grievance against the dean of an education faculty she did not realise that it would later scupper her chances of being promoted.
But after her applications for promotion to the post of assistant dean of the education faculty at Cape Peninsula University of Technology’s (CPUT) Mowbray and Wellington campuses were unsuccessful, she didn’t get mad — she got even.
The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) recently ordered the CPUT to pay Lungi Sosibo more than R284 000 in compensation after finding that there was “unfair conduct” in its selection process.
She said her case was about those who had won a crucial battle against power, ego and those who abuse the good name of CPUT by playing “God” when making decisions affecting the careers of employees.
“The ruling by the CCMA restored my self-worth, reputation, integrity and human dignity. I feel vindicated because it confirmed my belief that the recruitment and selection process which I participated in was unfair.”
Sosibo and three others had applied for the two posts but she did not challenge the successful appointment of the candidate at the Wellington campus because she felt it was fair.
The best performing candidate for the Mowbray post, Chris Hattingh, a white male, was found to be “not appointable” because of employment equity considerations.
Sosibo’s main gripe was against the appointment of Christa Thornhill, whom she claimed did not possess the minimum requirements for the post.
Her other objections to the selection process included scoring irregularities, the alleged bias of the dean of the education faculty, Professor Thobeka Mda, and the participation of Nomzuzo Zikalala, whom she described as Mda’s best friend and “the dean’s pet” on the selection panel.
Her contention was that Zikalala should not have been part of the selection panel because she was Thornhill’s referee and this was a conflict of interest.
Of all the members on the selection panel, Mda had given her the lowest score. Zikalala had also given her a low score.
Sosibo, who was awarded a doctorate in 1999 and who had acted as head of department for research for three months, believed she adequately met the requirements for the post.
According to the 25-page arbitration award, Sosibo believed the real reason for her non-appointment was the dean had a problem with her, which was unrelated to her suitability for the post.
She said, according to the document, that Mda was influential in the appointment processes and had “absolute power”.
“It was put to her that Mda was only one of the panellists and that the senate executive committee ultimately made the appointment, not individual panellists.”
After seeing the score sheets, she was convinced that the downward changes in some of the initial scores were as a result of a discussion among panel members after the interview about the list of grievances that she and other staff members had lodged against Mda.
The grievances included allegations of irregularities in the recruitment and selection processes in the education faculty.
“She felt that the grievance had a definite impact on how she was evaluated.”
According to the document, Mda testified that she had no personal gripe against Sosibo but “felt disappointed” in her and the others who had signed the grievance.
“She did not believe there was any conflict of interest in her participating in the interview of the applicant.”
Mda added that she had given Sosibo a final written warning that if she did not stop “besmirching” her name she would take legal action against her.
She said she could therefore understand that there may have been a reasonable apprehension of bias on the side of Sosibo at the time of the job interview.
She denied that the low score she gave Sosibo reflected her bias.
While another panellist gave her a score of four for her response to a question on “moving the faculty forward”, she gave one.
“She stated that she was not a high scorer and it was in order for her to score lower than others.”
Mda found the reference to Zikalala being her “pet” derogatory.
She stated at the arbitration hearing that although Sosibo, on paper, was the most qualified for the post, the final decision would be based on performance at the interview stage.
Among the reasons given by the panel for not appointing Sosibo was her “long-winded and unfocused responses” during the interview and her lack of management and conflict resolution skills.
But Sosibo was adamant that she should have been appointed because she is, apart from the job requirements, “a suitably qualified black female” and that the university had a shortage of black females at that level.
There were only three black females despite the target being 18.
The arbitrator found the chairperson of the interview panel, deputy vice-chancellor Professor AP Staak, not to be a satisfactory witness, adding that “he appeared uncomfortable, disinterested and preoccupied”.
“This could be due to the fact he had also testified at another arbitration.”
Mda’s evidence was tainted by the relationship she had with Sosibo which was described as “one fraught with tension and a deep-seated resentment in respect of events that unfolded concerning the collective grievance and the applicant’s [Sosibo’s] role in it”.
The arbitrator was scathing in his comments about the panellists’ recording of their scores stating that they were “very untidy” in their score sheets.
“Lotter’s [one of the panellists] score sheet was the worst. He had significantly altered her initial score from 22 to 21 to 19. Staak scored the applicant a five for curriculum questions and changed it to three. For a deputy vice-chancellor to have overrated the applicant by such a large degree initially seems less than credible.”
“The irregularities and alterations concerning the score sheets and how scores were arrived at are serious and appear to have been impacted by discussions related to the grievance. There had been deliberate tampering with the applicant’s scores adding to her perception that she had been treated unfairly.”
The arbitrator said it was “simply unacceptable” that such negligence was demonstrated in connection with scores,“which end up determining a person’s fate in a selection process”.
The arbitrator found that Zikalala should not have been part of the interview panel because she was one of Thornhill’s referees.
“The greatest issue of concern, however, related to the role that the grievance and alleged bias of Mda played in the interview process and outcome.
“Her bias, although vehemently denied by her, became very evident. It seemed from her side that her relationship with the applicant had been irretrievably damaged. It may reasonably be inferred that given these deep-seated emotions Mda negatively influenced panellists during the discussion of the grievances resulting in the applicant’s score being altered downwards.”
Academic Noor Davids, who formerly lectured at the university, said the ruling was “a victory for higher education transformation”.
“The judgment exposes the corruption at the level of job interviews, the collusion among panellists and the bias in CPUT’s highest office of governance. It has taken a small group of dedicated staff members, some of whom have resigned, to expose Mowbray for what it is: a faculty fixed in the trappings of its apartheid legacy and leadership, but hopefully will now be able to look forward to a brighter future.”