Africa. Cadre deployments have taken over real and formal selection processes. At the end of the day, unqualified and untested cadres will be appointed. Professionals should be in charge of selection processes and not mediocre.

Professionalism strengthens the process because the people selecting are considered knowledgeable and can make good decisions that will assist the process. Confidentiality is very important. The confidentiality of the procedures must be maintained. The information of the process should not be released so also the identities of the applicants scores, tests items and the one that was adjudged the best during the interviews. Release of information should always be through official sources; otherwise the process will be discredited and weakened. Most importantly, the panel must be diversified and consist of different persons with different perspectives and constituencies. For instance, if the selection for advancement is at a university or an academic setting, it is important to have different persons constituting the interview panel, from the academia, labour unions, students' representatives and the human resources. These people, representing different constituencies within the university community, will ask questions, based on their backgrounds, to the applicants based on the procedures and policy. Thereafter, collectively, the panellists will apply their minds and select the most suitable or appointable candidate for the job \cite{Arvey_Renz_1992}.

\section{7. Promotions are Prerogative of Employers but Must be Substantive and Procedurally Fair}

Even though an employer has the right to either promote or not, whatever decision is taken, it must be procedurally and substantively fair otherwise the process will be nullified and declared invalid. This is applicable in both private and public sectors. Failure to follow due processes will usually attract unpleasant consequences. Hence, it is imperative for an employer to get it right and not blunder. Consequently, at all times, it is incumbent upon the employer to have reasonable and convincing reasons for promoting an employee. In case an aggrieved applicant challenges the decision and becomes successful, the employer will be guilty of unfair labour practice. To avoid this type of scenario, the employer should ensure that the decision to promote is based on well-founded and correct principles and reasons by demonstrating convincingly that the applicant that is promoted is well suitable for the position. As Du Plessis puts it, there must be a logical connection between the real reasons and the decision taken \cite{Du_Plessis_2002}. But this issue of substance and being objective might be dicey sometimes. It poses a lot of challenges to the employer because the decision to prefer one applicant over another is always problematic in the workplace. An employer needs to balance all interests, apply its mind to ensure that there is no favouritism, that, all things being equal, all parties are given fair hearing; and that there is no element of bias prior, during and after selection processes.

However, it is necessary to point out that even if an employer would have followed and complied with due processes diligently, this employer has the discretionary right not to employ the best suitable person. The employer reserves the right to choose whoever it considers to be the best candidate and this will always be upheld, unless there is discovery of elements of mala fide or that the promotion was done arbitrarily.

The employer may set some acceptable standard for considerations of promotional processes. This will assist in scrutinising the decision to be taken before final promotion is made. The employer may set a certain hierarchy to the stated requirements. But during interviews, the employer may not ask questions on all the standard set. Most importantly, this will not render the process invalid because it is just a guide that may be used as a standard to ask questions. The employer can also deviate from the marks scored. If the person who scored the highest marks during the interview is not appointed, this will not jeopardise the appointment of the person who might have scored lower marks but was found appointable. Provided the employer followed its policy on ratings and duly applied its mind during the selection process, the decision to hire or promote a person with lower marks will not be fatal to the processes. This is the general practice in South Africa. The fact that a particular candidate obtained more marks in the interview is immaterial when it comes to the issue of appointment of a successful candidate; the panellists will appoint by applying their minds, not by virtue of marks scored by the candidates. The panellists therefore have the right to deviate from the marks scored and only apply their minds and appoint the best suitable candidate for the job. One important point that needs emphasis always is to admonish employers or their managers and superiors not to promise any contending candidate for a job or promotion; that come rain or sunshine, the applicant will be hired or promoted. In some cases, the panel needs to recommend to a higher body before promotion can be approved, that is, if the practice is that, whenever a recommendation to the highest body is made, there will be promotion. However, it is important to mention that there could be deviation from this practice. If the applicant recommended is not appointed by the higher body, it will not be fatal to the process. What needs to be established is whether the higher body has applied its mind. If this is proven to be correct and confirmed, that will not be unfair labour practice.

The issue of affirmative action and denial of promotion to some of the employees who fall within a designated group is very problematic and challenging. Sometimes, employers use this to deny some employees promotions just