Shortlisted, interviewed, forgotten: A story of ambition and disappointment

In a case that underscores the complexities of internal promotions and employee expectations, the Labour Court has dismissed an application by Mr Khuliso Hillary Mbulaleni, who sought to challenge Sasol Chemical Operations’ withdrawal of a job offer for a higher position. The judgment, delivered on 20 October 2025, highlights the importance of procedural compliance and the limits of employee expectations in promotion disputes. 

Background

Mr Mbulaleni, employed by Sasol since 2013 as a Process Controller Grade 1, applied for a promotional post as Process Artisan Grade 2 at Sasol’s Secunda Chemical Operations. After being shortlisted, interviewed, and verbally informed that he was the preferred candidate, he was asked to submit his qualifications and discuss salary expectations. However, the offer was later withdrawn, with Sasol citing a lack of plant-specific experience and internal policy restrictions on cross-plant promotions.

Mr Mbulaleni referred the matter to the National Bargaining Council for the Chemical Industry, alleging unfair labour practice. The arbitrator ruled against him, prompting a review application to the Labour Court.

The court’s findings

• While Mr Mbulaleni was shortlisted and interviewed, he did not meet the minimum plant-specific experience required for the position.
• Sasol’s internal policies prohibit vertical promotions across different plants without meeting specific competency and vetting requirements.
• The verbal communication and salary discussion did not constitute a binding job offer.
• The employer’s decision to withdraw the offer was not arbitrary or in bad faith, but rather aligned with its established recruitment and promotion policies.
• The court held that the arbitrator’s decision was reasonable and supported by evidence, and therefore not reviewable.

Legal implications

This case reinforces several key legal principles in employment law:

• No automatic right to promotion: Employees are not entitled to promotion unless explicitly provided for in law or contract.
• Legitimate expectation must be reasonable and procedurally sound: A verbal assurance or informal communication does not amount to a binding offer if internal procedures are not completed.
• Employer discretion is protected: Courts will not interfere with an employer’s promotion decisions unless they are shown to be irrational, discriminatory, or procedurally unfair.
• Policy compliance is critical: Employers must follow their own recruitment and promotion policies consistently to avoid claims of unfair labour practice.

Key takeaways

• For employers
• Ensure recruitment and promotion policies are clear, consistently applied, and well-communicated.
• Avoid creating false expectations through informal communication before vetting is complete.
• Document all stages of the hiring process to defend against potential disputes.

For employees

• Understand that being shortlisted or verbally informed of success does not guarantee appointment.
• Familiarise yourself with internal promotion policies and requirements.
• Keep records of all communications but be cautious about interpreting informal discussions as binding offers.

Conclusion

While Mr Mbulaleni’s disappointment is understandable, the court’s ruling affirms that fairness in promotion processes must be balanced with adherence to policy and operational requirements. The case serves as a cautionary tale about the importance of clarity, compliance, and communication in employment decisions.

For advice or more information, please contact Riona Kalua, head of our Labour and Employment team.