View Categories

03 December 2025 -ELRC1160-24/25

Case Number: ELRC1160-24/25
Commissioner: SME MBATHA
Date of Award: 03 December 2025

In the ABITRATION between

SAOU obo STEPHANIE BEZUIDENHOUT
(Union / Applicant)

And

PROVINCIAL DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION: FREE STATE
(Respondent)

DETAILS OF THE HEARING AND REPRESENTATION

  1. This is an award between SAOU obo Stephanie Bezuidenhout (an educator at Roseview Primary School), the Applicant, and the Education Department of the Free State, the Respondent.
  2. The arbitration hearing was held at the Department of Education, in the Saambou Building in Bloemfontein, on
    1 October 2025. Ms. Cynthia Farrell (SAOU) represented Stephanie Bezuidenhout (applicant). Mr. Solomon Moloi represented the Department of Education (respondent).
  3. The arbitration was held in terms of Section 24(5) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995, as amended (the LRA), and the award is issued in terms of Section 138(7) of the LRA.
  4. The proceedings were electronically recorded, and I took handwritten notes.

ISSUE TO BE DETERMINED

  1. I am required to decide whether or not the Respondent complied with Chapter G of the Personnel, Administrative Measures (PAM). Should I find non-compliance of the Respondent, I am required to determine the appropriate remedy under the Collective Agreement. The Applicant seeks that the Respondent comply with the interpretation and application of section G of the PAM, Collective Agreement.

BACKGROUND TO THE DISPUTE

  1. The Applicant referred to a dispute in terms of section 24- Interpretation and Application of a Collective agreement. It is a common cause that there was a grievance referred, and the outcome of the grievance was issued to the parties. It is also a common cause that the Respondent was advised to investigate the allegation, as per the outcomes of the grievance, and that there had been no investigation as per the outcome of the grievance, and in line with the application and interpretation of the collective agreement.

APPLICANT’S EVIDENCE

  1. The Applicant, Ms. Bezuidenhout, testified that the grievance was filed on 10 May 2024. The school principal was aware of the grievance; however, he failed to resolve the dispute. The Applicant informed the principal that he would escalate the matter to the union, as he had not received any satisfaction regarding the case of victimization at school.
  2. The formal grievance was filed through the union, and he was confident that the dispute would be resolved through policies and procedures that were in place for the school, but nothing was done, no solution was reached, and the union referred the matter to the ELRC.
  3. The grievance was eventually held, and the outcome was issued; however, there was non-compliance with the outcome of the grievance. The outcome directed that the Director must appoint an investigation team to investigate the allegation at the grievance outcome.
  4. The Applicant testified that they were seeking that the time frame be set, and action taken to rectify the wrongs. On 24 April 2025, there was a scheduled meeting by the circuit manager, Mr Mokati, who called him while he was in the classroom, without being notified on time for the meeting scheduled. In addition, it was the first time he came to address the matter way after 30 days, whilst the dispute should be speedy, impartial, and resolved at the lowest level.
  5. Ms. Cynthia Farrell referred to the PAM document, chapter G, page 29 of the Applicant’s bundle. She said a formal grievance was lodged and failed. It was referred to the principal, Mr. Fourie, in February 2024, and it was also referred to the district office. The full details were given within the prescribed period of 90 days; however, nothing was done. She referred the council to chapter G, page 30, of the PAM, ON G4.2.2, and confirmed that it was not done.

12 The grievance was not heard within 30 days by the department in terms of the outcomes of the conciliation. On 29 July 2025, they had a Grievance meeting between the Applicant, the union, and deputy director Michael Thjabalala, and the outcome of that meeting was to convene an investigation with regard to mismanagement of funds, and the examination of management forgery of assessments. The matter was still unresolved and not attended to. She said there were also no time frames set out.

RESPONDENT’S EVIDENCE

  1. The Respondent, Mr. Solomon Moloi, testified that the department did not ignore the dispute; however, it tried to resolve it. The two documents submitted indicated that the circuit manager attempted to resolve the dispute on 24 July 2024, and the second attempt was on 24 April 2024.
  2. He testified that there was an order to attend the matter out of the stipulated time frame, 29 July 2025, which he believed was out of the time frame. He further stated that the dispute was not attended to due to the unavailability of officials concerned due to their commitment, hence the matter was not attended to.

ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS

  1. Section 24 (5) of the LRA provides that where the issue in dispute concerns the interpretation and application of the collective agreement, if the dispute remains unresolved, any party to the dispute may request that the dispute be resolved through arbitration.
  2. The Applicant and the Respondent led evidence concerning the dispute; however, their evidence was not in line with the dispute referred to as per the interpretation and application of the collective agreement. The PAM document is not a collective agreement, and it could not be used to replace a Collective Agreement. PAM documents can only be used to support a particular issue, but it is not a Collective Agreement. The question would then be which Collective Agreement is to be interpreted, or which Collective Agreement is in dispute.
  3. The ELRC has no power to compel the Education Department of education to deal with the matter; however, the Applicant is advised to re-refer the correct dispute.

RULING

  1. The ELRC does not have jurisdiction to deal with the matter, under Interpretation and Application of the Collective Agreement, because PAM is not a Collective Agreement.

Commissioner: SME Mbatha Signature:

Date: 03 December 2025 ELRC : Bloemfontein