04 June 2026 – ELRC1220-25/26LP

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
TIMMERMAN IVAN APPLICANT
AND
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, LIMPOPO RESPONDENT
Case No: ELRC 1220-25/26LP
DATE OF THE AWARD: 03 JUNE 2026
ELRC ARBITRATOR: THOMAS MAHASHA
:
DETAILS OF THE HEARING AND REPRESENTATION.

1) Arbitration took place in terms of the referral of the matter by the employee to the ELRC. It was set down for arbitration on 19 May 2026 at Waterberg District, Department of Education, Limpopo. The employee was in attendance represented by Makhubedu A of NAPTOSA. The employer was, represented by Nthabiseng Rasebotsa, Assistant Director of the Department of Education attached to grievances and dispute resolution directorate.

ISSUES TO BE DECIDED.

2) The employee argues that the employer incorrectly interpreted and applied clauses B.6.3, B.6.4.2, B 6.5 and B.6.4.3 of Collective Agreement 4 of 2016.
3) I am therefore, called upon to determine whether or not the clauses referred to above were correctly applied and interpreted.
BACKGROUND TO THE DISPUTE.

4) The school was furnished with a new post establishment for 2026 around November 2025. In terms of the new post establishment, the school was allocated 14. At that time, the school had 19 educators.
5) Upon receiving the new post establishment, the principal had a meeting with staff educators on 22 October 2025.
6) Another meeting was held on 27 October 2025, wherein the principal outlined procedures he took into consideration in declaring the five educators additional to the staff.
7) Another meeting was held on 28 October 2025. During that meeting, the principal discussed with the educators how the R&R process would unfold going forward. The applicant and five other educators were declared additional.
8) Aggrieved by the decision, he lodged a grievance which was dismissed. It was for that reason that he declared a dispute with the ELRC, seeking a relief that the R&R process to be redone.
9) The matter was set down for arbitration on 19 May 2026 at Modimolle District, office of the Department of Education, Limpopo.

SURVEY OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT.

EMPLOYEE’S EVIDENCE.
10) Timmerman Ivan’s testimony was as follows:-
11) He works at Suzan Stryjdom School which is accommodates learners with special needs. He has qualifications and experience, which if considered, the employer would not have declared him additional to the staff establishment. The school principal flouted resolutions B.6.3, B.6.4, B.6.5, B.6.6, and B.6.7 of resolution 4 of 2016 Clause.
12) B.6.3 of the Collective Agreement requires of the school principal to inform staff members about the staff establishment, and that the action must be followed by a staff meeting. The principal informed the staff about the post staff establishment and of a procedure on the day of the meeting. The views of the staff members were not deliberated on, but not taken into consideration. The employer engaged the services of trade union representatives in running the R&R process.
13) He was part of the meeting that was held on 27 October 2025. Thereafter, two more meetings were held.
14) Clause B 6.4.2 requires of the principal after considering clause B 6.4. 2.1 together with the Circuit/District Manager identify the educators in addition taking into account the provisions of clauses B B.6.4.2.1 to B.6.4.2.5. The principal was not involved in the R&R process. Contrary to the provisions of Collective Agreement 4 of 2016, he instead, outsourced the responsibility to Langa and Pringle.
15) The principal is enjoined to consider the views of staff educators expressed at a formal meeting convened by him. The principal did not consider their views. Every time they raised their concerns, they were told to lodge a grievance.
16) He did not consider the needs of the institution, more particularly the specific curriculum obligations, and the number of classes, the time table and allocation of learners to classes.
17) Clause B. 6.4. 1. requires the principal, after consulting with the educator staff of the institution at a formal meeting, to recommend that educators who may be declared in addition, be absorbed in vacancies that exist or will exist in the near future at that education institution. Contrary to the provision, educators were not consulted. Every time they raise their views, they are told to lodge grievances.
18) Contrary to the provisions of B.6.4.2.2 the principal failed to take into account his qualifications and experience. He failed to take into account, the curriculum obligations of the institution, number of classes, time table and allocation of learners to classes. He had an experience of teaching ICT which is a spectrum in which computers are covered. The SGB had erroneously phased out ICT without consulting with educators. If ICT was not phased out, he would not have been declared additional. A decision to declare him additional was taken without considering his profile. He did not know why he was declared additional. Weighting was not properly done from the beginning.
19) In terms of clause B.6.5.3 the employer shall provide a list of vacancies and their own profiles for matching. He was matched on an incomplete profile. If his entire, profile was considered, he would not have been declared additional.
20) He agreed that he was not matched to the list of schools because he did not submit his academic record. However, the principal should have matched him because he was aware that he had a science degree.

RESPONDENT’S EVIDENCE.

21) Mashilo Alfred Motshabi testified that he is the acting principal since April 2025.
22) He informed the staff educators about the new staff establishment. During the second meeting, he presented posts on a projector and informed the staff about available subjects. At that time, the applicant was teaching ICT which was incorporated to other subjects. ICT was therefore, phased out.
23) He also informed the staff that he will match educators/posts during the third meeting. During the third meeting, he allocated posts to subjects. Despite several requests by him and the circuit manager, the applicant did not submit his profile. The applicant could not be matched because he did not submit his profile upon request. In the absence of a profile and academic records, it was impossible to know if the applicant would be able to teach mathematics.
24) Aggrieved by the outcome of the R&R process, the applicant and five other educators lodged a grievance. The Circuit Manager visited the school to address the five educators. Two of the educators agreed to be transferred.
25) The Circuit Manager appointed a team of two former trade unionists to run with the R&R process to build the element of trust. Although, he was still part of the team, the circuit manager engaged the services of the experienced trade unionists because she felt she had to get a second opinion from a neutral team.
26) The applicant and five other educators were still declared in excess by the team. The applicant and 1 other refused to be transferred.
27) The applicant and some educators were not happy about the process to an extent that hey rejected the timetable which he presented; and drawn theirs. The Circuit Manager visited the school to inform the entire staff that she will be appointing a neutral team to do the R&R process.
28) Clause B.6.3 dictates that the principal must inform his/her staff of the institution’s new staff establishment and of the procedure that will be followed in identifying educators who cannot be accommodated on the new establishment.
29) Collective agreement 4 of 2016 was correctly applied and implemented by the principal.
30) Ruth Pringle testified that she was requested to serve in the team because of her experience in serving under FEDSAS and working at High Schools. Although the acting principal was still part of the team, she and her colleague were requested not only on the basis of being SAOU and SADTU members, but also being school principals. They were not tasked to redo the process from the beginning. Their terms of reference involved identifying educators to be declared in additional.
31) The Circuit Manager told them that they were better suited to handle the situation because there were trade union factions at the school. She has an honours degree in special needs education.
32) She was informed that identification of educators done by the school principal was rejected by the educators. She and her colleague, used SASAMS to identify appointment dates of each educators. In order to identify subjects to which educators could be matched, they used 2025 timetable. Their first task was to check if there were educators who could take early retirement. They prioritized educators who could teach more than one subject. Educators were identified based on their qualifications, curriculum needs and seniority. They identified Molokomme, Venter, Nezar, Timmerman and Lebogo. They considered LIFO after taking out those not teaching special needs subjects.
33) In this case, LIFO did not apply to the applicant because it was only applied after identifying educators who at that time were not offering special needs subjects.
34) There was no basis not to declare the applicant additional because he was not teaching a special subject. In the absence of an academic record, the applicant could not have been identified to teach other subjects.
35) They were informed that ICT was a generalized subject which was nice to have and done by all learners. There were other educators who could teach technology which includes ICT. ICT was no longer offered in 2025. It was only offered as an enrichment subject in 2024.

ANALYSIS OF ARGUMENTS AND FINDINGS.

36) Collective agreements, are in accordance with the provisions of section 23 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, binding on the parties.
37) The purpose of section 24 of the LRA is to resolve disputes where a party to an agreement is alleged to have been in breach of the provisions of that agreement by failing to interpret and apply its terms correctly.
38) In Western Cape Department of Health v Van Wyk & Others (2014) 35 ILJ 3078 (LAC), the court laid down the principles of interpretation as follows: “when interpreting a collective agreement, the arbitrator is enjoined to bear in mind that a collective agreement is not like an ordinary contract, and he/she is therefore required to consider the aim, purpose and all the terms of a collective agreement….. in addition, it is expected of the arbitrator to adopt an interpretation and application that is fair to the parties. A collective agreement is a written memorandum which is meant to reflect the terms and conditions to which the parties have agreed at the time that they concluded the agreement”
39) I am therefore, required to give effect to the intention of the parties, to give words used by the parties their plain, ordinary and popular meaning if there is no ambiguity. Parties’ intention is clearly stated in clauses B.6.3, B.6.4, B.6.5., B.6.6, and B.6.7 of Collective Agreement 4 of 2016 which are a subject of contention.
40) The purpose of Collective Agreement 4 of 2016 is to replace the provisions of Collective Agreement 2 of 2003 regarding the transfer of serving educators in terms of operational requirements.
41) In terms of clause 6 of the Collective Agreement in dispute, “any dispute arising from the application and interpretation its terms shall be referred to the ELRC for resolution in terms of its dispute resolution procedures”. The dispute is therefore, properly before the Council.
42) Clause B.6.3 requires of the principal to inform his/her staff of the institution’s new staff establishment and of the procedure, as set out in the next paragraph, that will be followed in identifying educators who cannot be accommodated on the new establishment. It is clear that the clause does not specify the manner in which the principal must inform the staff.
43) Any form of consulting with educators, shall for purposes of this clause be compliant. It was not disputed by the employee that such consultation took place on two occasions. He held a meeting with the staff educators on 22 October 2025 and 22 October 2025, respectively. On both occasions, the applicant was in attendance. During the third meeting, the circuit manager was also in attendance. That too, was part of the consultation that took place. The principal had in my view, complied with clause B.6.3.
44) Clause B.6.4.1 provides for the next step that the principal must take after informing the staff of the new post establishment and the prescribed procedures to be followed declaring educators additional or in excess to the post establishment. The first prescribed step in terms of clause B.6.4.1 is for the principal to recommend for the absorption of educators declared additional in vacancies that exist or will exists in the near future at that particular school or institution. There was no basis for a claim that the principal did not comply with this clause. The applicant and his colleagues had in fact, frustrated the process.
45) Clause B.6.4.2.1 enjoins the Circuit Manager together with the principal to identify the educators in addition taking into account: the views of educator staff expressed in a formal meeting, the needs of the institution, more particularly in relation to its specific curriculum obligations, the number of classes, the timetable and the number of learners to a class.
46) I agree with the applicant that the Collective Agreement does not specifically provide for a task team to identify the educators in addition. However, it is clear from this provision that the Circuit Manager has those powers. He took steps to address the applicant’s concerns in a formal meeting and pleaded with him to accept the outcome. The Circuit Manager was pushed by the circumstances to delegate his powers to a task team that he believed educators would trust considering their trade union background. There is no evidence that educators complained about the manner in which the team was constituted. The only time that they showed their dissatisfaction was when the outcomes of placement was brought to their attention. One wonders if the same dissatisfaction would have been shown by the applicant if he was not declared additional. The fact of the matter is that the applicant only expected one outcome, which would not result in him being transferred. The Circuit Manager complied with clause B. 6.4.2 when identifying educators additional.
47) The powers of matching educators to posts according to experience, rank and competencies is the prerogative of the principal. ELRC shall only assume jurisdiction to determine if the decision to transfer an educator from one institution to the other following an R&R process, was fair or not.
48) Transfer of educators is for operational requirements which is based but not limited to change in learner enrolment, curriculum changes or change in learner’s involvement in the curriculum, change to the grading or classification of an institution, merging or closing of institutions and financial constraints. The operational requirements of the employer remain the ultimate and overriding factor to be considered when deciding he transfer. There was no evidence presented by the applicant to suggest that the respondent did not take into account his personal circumstances.
49) The applicant and his colleagues rejected the time table drawn by the principal and used their own time table. Such an action can only be attributed to an employee who is not ready to subject himself to authorities. To date, the applicant is still refusing to be transferred, though without legal basis to do so.
50) It is common cause that despite being requested to submit his academic records, he failed to do so. He is therefore, the author of his own misfortune, if any.
51) According to the submissions made, the principal considered the operational needs and specific curriculum needs when declaring educators additional to the staff establishment. Educators were given an opportunity to state their views in a formal meeting. There is no indication or evidence that the principal did not consider the views of staff educators as prescribed by clause B 6.4. The fact that he informed educators of their right to lodge a grievance did not mean that he did not take their views in to consideration. In taking their views into consideration, the applicant had to contrary to the individual needs of educators, take into account that the needs of children are of paramount importance in all matters involving them.
52) There is no evidence that the respondent did not comply with clause B.6.5. The applicant refused to be transferred, which in actual fact would in my view, necessitates disciplinary actions against him, or alternatively, the respondent invoking retrenched procedures. The applicant was furnished with a list of schools to choose from. He did not do so. He still refused to choose a school he could be transferred to. The applicant had in my view, been deliberately grossly insolent.
53) He blatantly refused to make representations to the principal, the circuit manager and the appointed team in the form of making available what was requested of him. There was therefore, nothing that the respondent could have considered in not declaring him additional.
54) The applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the respondent had failed to apply and interpret Collective Agreement 4 of 2016.
55) The respondent’s interpretation and application of Collective Agreement 4 of 2016 cannot be faulted or interfered with.

AWARD.
56) The respondent correctly interpreted and applied Collective Agreement 4 of 2016 when declaring the applicant additional to the post establishment.
57) The applicant’s dispute is therefore, dismissed.