Case Number: PSES WC
Province: Western Cape
Applicant: S BRANDT
Respondent: DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION WC
Issue: Unfair Labour Practice - Promotion/Demotion
Award Date: 23 August 1999
Arbitrator: J HAMMAN
In the Arbitration between:
S Brandt (‘the Applicant’)
Western Cape Education Department (‘the Employer’)
This arbitration, concerning the alleged failure by the WCED to appoint Mr S Brandt into a permanent post, was held in George on 16 August 1999. Mr Roman of SADTU represented Ms Brandt. Mr Faker, assisted by Ms Knoetze, represented the employer.
2. Issue in Dispute
The only issue in dispute is whether the WCED should have appointed Ms Brandt in a permanent post. This depends on whether she was a temporary teacher in a substantive vacant post on 1 July 1996. The WCED denies that she was in a substantive vacant post on that date, whereas Ms Brand believes that she was.
Ms Brandt told the arbitration that she entered the teaching profession in 1994 when she was appointed at the South Cape College. In 1995 she started working a Brixton Secondary School. Her contract was renewed and in 1996 she was moved to a substantive post. She continued working at the school up to the end of 1997. When she reported for duty in 1998, she was told that there was no post for her.
According to her she was moved to a substantive post in 1996. Her evidence was that the principal, Mr Ellman, informed her in 1996 that she had been placed in a substantive post. In further support she presented a list if names of protected persons. She also presented a newspaper clipping that indicated that Ms Claasen was the only new teacher at the school and in a temporary post, thus indicating that she (Ms Brandt) was a permanent appointee.
The WCED disputed these allegations. Mr Ellman denied ever having made any statement to the effect that she was in a substantive position. The protected list, the said, was not an official list. All persons who were in substantive posts were sent letters informing them of their status. No such letter was sent to Ms Brandt.
Second, they argued couldn’t be held responsible for untrue newspaper articles. They did not make any press release to the effect that Ms Claasen, or any other person, was employed at the school.
According to their information she was a replacement teacher during the period from 1 March 1996 and 31 December 1996. She was replacing a person who was on study leave. These statements were supported by her application, which stated that she was applying to be a replacement teacher.
4. Evaluation of the Evidence
The onus to prove that she was in a vacant, substantive post lies with Ms Brandt. The proper test is whether, on the balance of probabilities, she did indeed occupy the post. The alleged statement by Mr Ellman that she was in a vacant substantive post does not shed any light on the matter.
The most important official document provided at the arbitration was the application and nomination form which lead to Ms Brandt’s employment. In this document it is stated clearly that she was to be employed as a replacement teacher. This, combined with the fact that she could not provide a letter of appointment, leads to the conclusion that she was in fact only a replacement teacher and therefore not protected by Resolution 3 of 1996.
It is found that Ms Brandt did not occupy a vacant substantive post on the effective date of 1 July 1996, and she can accordingly not claim the protection offered by Resolution 3 of 1996.
Thus awarded in Cape Town on this 23rd day of August 1999.
EDUCATION LABOUR RELATIONS COUNCIL
CASE NUMBER PSES WC
APPLICANT S BRANDT
RESPONDENT DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION WC
ARBITRATOR J HAMMAN
DATE OF ARBITRATION 16 AUGUST 1999
APPLICANT MR ROMAN (SADTU)
RESPONDENT MS KNOETZE
1 It is found that Ms Brandt did not occupy a vacant substantive post on the effective date of 1 July 1996, and she can accordingly not claim the protection offered by Resolution 3 of 1996.
DATE OF AWARD 23 AUGUST 1999