Panelist: Clint Enslin Case No.: ELRC1221-25/26EC Date of Award: 8 July 2026

In the ARBITRATION between:

NAPTOSA obo Dick Marais
(Union / Applicant)

and

Department of Education: Eastern Cape

(Respondent)

Applicant’s representative: Adv. Gavin Saayman (NAPTOSA)
Applicant’s address:

Telephone:
Telefax:
Email

Respondent’s representative: Mr Sandiso Xhalasile
Respondent’s address:


Telephone:
Telefax:
Email

DETAILS OF HEARING AND REPRESENTATION

1. This dispute was scheduled for arbitration in terms of Section 33A(4) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 as amended (“the LRA”) read with Clause 69 of the ELRC Constitution: ELRC Dispute Resolution Procedures. The hearing was held at the offices of the Respondent in Gqeberha, on 27 March and 22 May and was concluded on-line, via Teams, on 18 June 2026. The Applicant, Mr Dick Marais, through his Union NAPTOSA, referred a dispute relating to the alleged breach of a Collective Agreement to the ELRC.
2. The Applicant was represented by Adv. Gavin Saayman, an official from NAPTOSA. The Respondent, Department of Education: Eastern Cape, was represented by Mr Sandiso Xhalasile, a Labour Relations Officer of the Respondent.

ISSUE TO BE DECIDED

3. I am required to determine if the Respondent is in breach of the Collective Agreement and if so, determine the appropriate relief.

BACKGROUND TO THE ISSUES

4. The dispute relates to the redeployment of the Applicant to another school, on 23 January 2026, as a result of a reduction on the 2026 PPN.
5. The following facts were agreed to between the parties as common cause and there existed no dispute of fact.

5.1 The Applicant has been employed, by the Respondent, since 1 January 1990.

5.2 At the time of his transfer, he was a PL2 Departmental Head.

5.3 He is on notch R507 225 per annum.

5.4 He was initially placed at Delrose Full Service School (“initial school”) and had been transferred to St Joseph’s RC Primary School (“new school”).

5.5 His transfer took place on 23 January 2026.

5.6 He was the longest serving of the 5 Department Heads at Delrose Primary.

5.7 He was the Department Head (“DH”) for mathematics at Delrose Primary.

5.8 The staff at Delarose Primary had decided that LIFO should be used in determining who was to be transferred (in excess).

5.9 There had been a reduction of staff on the PPN for 2026, in relation to PL2 (DH) posts at Delrose Primary.

5.10 The Applicant was the only male DH at Delrose Primary.

5.11 ELRC Collective Agreement 4 of 2016 is applicable.

6. The Applicant handed in 2 x bundles of documents, which I marked “A1”and “A2”. The Respondent initially handed in 1 bundle of documents, which I marked “R1” and later a second bundle of documents which I marked “R2”. Parties agreed that the documents were what it purported to be.
7. The matter was digitally recorded.
8. Parties submitted written closing arguments, the last of which was received on 26 June 2026.

SURVEY OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT

9. This award constitutes a brief summary of evidence, argument and my reasons for the award issued in
   terms of Section 138 (7)(a), of the LRA, relevant to the dispute at hand and does not reflect all the
   evidence and arguments heard and considered in deciding this matter.

Applicant’s Case
Mr Dick Marais

10. The Applicant, Mr Dick Marais, testified that A1 page 2 was the document the principal had given him to inform him of the move. The letter confirmed that he had been declared as additional in terms of the PPN. He asked the principle on which basis as the staff had decided that LIFO should be used. The principal confirmed that it was in terms of Collective Agreement 4 of 2016, clauses B.6.4.2.2 to B.6.4.3.4. He did not know why the principal had not mentioned clause B.6.4.2.1, however, he had said that the EDO had not gone over the minutes and had asked him to give a summary of what happened in the meeting with the staff.
11. The relevant sections (see A2) read as follows: Clause B.6.4.2: “After considering B.6.4.1 above, the Circuit/District Manager together with the principal shall identify the educators in addition, taking into account the following:

• B.6.4.2.1 – The views of the educator staff of the institution as expressed at a formal meeting convened by the principal;
• B.6.4.2.2 – The needs of the institution, more particularly in relation to its specific curriculum obligations, the number of classes, the timetable and the allocation of learners to classes;
• B.6.4.2.3 – The Circuit/District Manager shall take cognizance of the fact that there is not necessarily a direct relation between the posts identified as in addition and an educator who will be declared in addition, as there may be more than one post with substantially the same duties attached to it;
• B.6.4.2.4 – If a decision has to be taken regarding two or more educators competing for the same post, the principal of “last in, first out” (LIFO) shall be applied. An educator’s service period for the application of LIFO shall include all continuous service rendered at any public education institution.

12. He had been teaching mathematics for nearly 37 years and had been a DH at Delrose Primary since 2019. He had previously been at Caritas Primary for 29 years and had then been appointed at Delrose Primary as a DH. Out of the 3 intermediate phase DHs, he taught the most periods. The other 2 DHs were in the Foundation Phase. He taught grade 5 – 3 classes of 12 periods each, which equated to 36 periods per two week cycle. He was also the DH for Life Skills (LO) grades 4 to 7. He was further responsible for maintenance, was a member of the finance committee, the sports convener and a member of the teacher SGB component. The mathematics department had been underperforming, according to the Department. Last year or the year before they had moved out of being underperforming, after he had had discussions with the grade 6 mathematics teacher. Grade 6 was usually used, by the Department, to determine performance of a school.
13. He believed that the LIFO clause, per A2 clause B.6.4.2.4, was applicable to the post of DH. Ms K Langeveldt was also a DH at Delrose Primary. She was appointed on 18 February 1991. LIFO had not been applied. He felt that he had been disadvantaged when clause B.6.4.2.2 was considered as he taught a very important subject. He further believed that if LIFO was applied one of the others would have been affected. He did not think the Department had acted in the best interest of the child as they had taken away a teacher teaching an important subject, meaning the children would suffer. Delrose Primary had 34 staff members, including the principal, of which 9 were male (including the principal). The learner numbers for 2025, of which approximately 60% were female, were confirmed at the bottom of A1 page 4. It confirmed that in 2025 there were 417 learners in the Foundation Phase and 605 learners in the Intermediate Phase. The total was therefore 1 125 learners.
14. He had received the letter, at A1 page 1 dated 22 January 2026, on 23 January 2026. The principal had sent it to him on the Friday, at 16h59, via WhatsApp. It confirmed his move to St Joseph’s Primary School. He and the principal only spoke about school work. They did not have a private relationship. A1 pages 4 to 9 were the minutes of the staff meeting about the re-deployment. It stated that the meeting was held in the staff room on Wednesday 26 November 2025 at 11h30. At the top of page 5 it confirmed that there were 5 DHs and that the two, both with surname Adams, were in Foundation Phase. The second paragraph on page 9 of the minutes confirmed that the staff had collectively agreed that LIFO principle should be applied in determining the re-deployment of the DH.
15. R pages 6, 7A and 7B were the minutes of the meeting the principal had with the Department about the identification of PPN reduction, which was held at Sonop Primary in Despatch on 5 December 2025 (“Identification Meeting”). The meeting was attended by Mr Blou (Circuit manager), Mr Voster (principal), Mr Jaggers (NAPTOSA) and Mrs Hini (SADTU). No minutes of the internal staff meeting had been brought to the staff and accordingly no register was given to sign in relation to same. They were showed the minutes of the staff meeting the day after the meeting. There were certain errors, such as spelling, etc, however, the contents was correct. It was to be corrected and brought back for them to check and sign. This had not happened and the principal had gone to the identification meeting without doing so. He was not aware of any previous meetings or presentations on the issue as stated on page 7A.
16. He was not sure why as per 7A the principal had said no need to move languages as they were moved to teach where the principal needed them. He disagreed with the comment, in the same document, that there were more mathematics teachers than for science as there were the same amount in both. Mathematics did not have 3 classes and 4 teachers as stated. Grade 4 had 4 classes, grade 5 had 4 classes, grade 6 had 3 classes and grade 7 had 4 classes. There were 4 teachers, one per grade. Grades 4 to 7 were known as the intersen phase. All intersen learners took mathematics. He disputed that Natural Science and Technology had 5 classes in 2025. He stated that it was in fact 4 classes.
17. His qualifications included the following subjects: Mathematics, Afrikaans, English, Natural Science, History, Technology and Physical Education. He had taught mathematics, geography, history and natural science before. He believed he was identified as he was the only member of the SMT that questioned the principal.
18. He believed that the 2 foundation phase DHs should have been included in the process as it was a DH position to re-deploy and they were all DHs. The staff’s view was not considered as they had decided on LIFO and it was not used. They had not considered that mathematics cannot be taught by all. Teachers avoided it although it was one of the most important subjects. He was the only DH in mathematics. He believed that in primary schools teachers could be moved between subjects. Although he had given the names of 3 schools to be transferred to he had indicated that it was being done under protest until the issue was resolved. They had said that if he did not choose, he would be placed far from where he lived. He was, however, not forced to give the 3 school’s names. The principal had not reported back to staff about the identification meeting at Sonop Primary.

Ms Yulania George (PL1 educator at Delrose Primary)

19. Ms Yulania George testified she had commenced permanent employment in 2019 at Delrose Primary. She was currently a grade 2 educator there. Her functions at the school included: being a teacher, treasurer of the school, SGB member, netball coach, assisting with SASAMS typing and being a member of various committees. A1 pages 4 to 9 were the minutes of the internal redeployment meeting. She was present at this meeting. The principal had said that, per the 2025 PPN, a DH was to be lost. He had brought the PPN and Collective Agreement 4 of 2016 to the meeting. The staff had decided collectively on LIFO as the criteria. They had not discussed class totals, however, the deputy principal had stated that there were too many educators in foundation phase and as such one would be moved to the intermediate phase.
20. The needs were not discussed. The principal had only mentioned the subjects taught by the DHs. He, however, exclude one of the Applicant’s subjects, being: Life Orientation. The DHs were as per the top of A1 page 5. The principal had not informed them that the needs of the school are looked at and not only LIFO. The Applicant had been identified as the other 4 DHs were often in the principal’s office in the mornings without the Applicant and thereafter information was shared about planning etc. She did not believe that 2 HODs were required in the foundation phase as there were not too few learners and one educator had to move to intermediate phase. All foundation phase educators had the same qualifications. Last week the deputy principal has stated that the SGB needed to appoint an educator for mathematics to cover for the Applicant.
21. She had a professional relationship with the principal. The principal had stated that the Applicant had been identified as there was an excess in mathematics. She disputed that the deputy principal taught mathematics. The deputy principal had told them that the reason for moving an educator from foundation to intersen phase was that if the move was not made, the educator would not have a class as there were too few children in the foundation phase. The corrected minutes of the staff meeting had not come back to them.

Respondent’s Case
Mr Jackson Blou (Circuit Manager)

22. Mr Jackson Blou, a circuit manager of the Respondent, testified that as per Collective Agreement 4 of 2016, he and the principal had to identify the person in excess after the principal had a staff meeting. He got involved after the staff meeting and as such he was not part of the staff meeting. The outline of the identification process was that circuit managers invited schools and unions (SADTU and NAPTOSA) to the meeting. The principal had to submit all documentation, including: 2026 PPN, PERSAL printout, staff list, minutes of PPN meeting at school and its attendance register, the notice of the PPN staff meeting, the list where all teachers confirmed the minutes of the aforementioned meeting and other documents. The principal then took them through the minutes of the staff meeting. All schools that were losing teachers due to PPN attended the meeting. The principal’s minutes included school needs, curriculum, learner and teacher numbers, subject totals, etc.
23. The operational and curriculum needs of a school were determined by the school presenting its subject allocation. This was subjects and teacher allocation for same. They then established teacher loads. The 2026 PPN was based on the 2025 allocation and enrollment. They could then determine how many teachers taught a subject. If they were unclear they would engage the principal for further information. R page 7 was how the identification in the current matter was done. He and the principal, as verified by the unions, had determined that the excess was not in foundation phase as there were 418 learners and a ratio of 1 to 32 was used. As such there were 13 posts. They had 13 in the foundation phase. 11 teachers and 2 DHs. They then looked at the intersen phase. It had 606 learners. Applying the ratio of 1 to 32 it meant they should have 18,9 (rounded up to 19 ) educators. There were 14 PL1 educators, 3 DHs and 2 deputy principals and the principal, which gave a total of 20. As such there was 1 in excess in the intersen phase.
24. According to the PPN the school was supposed to have 4 DHs. They had 5 and therefore it was a DH in excess. The 2 foundation phase DHs were therefore eliminated due to the curriculum needs (13 educators needed and 13 in place). They were then left with the three DHs in intersen phase. One was in languages (English and Afrikaans), one in mathematics and one in natural sciences. Mrs Langeveldt was DH over two languages (dual medium) and as such they concluded that she was essential. The unions agreed. They were left with the Applicant in mathematics and Ms Arumugam in natural science. They could not use LIFO as they did not teach the same subjects.
25. They then looked at how many classes they taught across grades and how many other teachers taught the same subject. As per the statistics presented, there were more mathematics teachers in the intersen phase. There were 4 including the Applicant and the deputy principal. Natural science had 3. In grade 7 natural science split into two, natural science and technology. Grade 7 therefore required 2 teachers. They then asked the principal if he would cope if he lost either from mathematics or science. The principal had to answer with reasons based on the curriculum facts. He confirmed he would have a problem if the science person was taken and would cope if the mathematics person was taken. Based on what was presented, he was satisfied and the observer unions were also in agreement / satisfied. LIFO was not used as they were not competing for the same post (see B.6.4.2.2 to B.6.4.2.4 of Collective Agreement 4 of 2016.) One was teaching mathematics and the other science. If they taught the same subject LIFO would have been used.
26. Once a person was identified, the District Director, as delegated by the HOD, would approve same. The unions had no issue with the approval in the current matter. There was a district task team that reported to a provincial task team. In the district task team all unions were present and HR. It was chaired by a District Director or delegated person. The identification report was taken to this meeting and all approved same. The Applicant’s grievance was also brought to the meeting. The process was confirmed as fair and there was no objection from the unions.
27. On the day of the identification meeting, the minutes of the staff meeting were presented to him. They had proposed LIFO. The decision on identification did not lie with staff. They had discussed curriculum needs as they had an agenda they followed in terms of which they asked for information on same and the principal gave same. The staff had also discussed the curriculum per the minutes of their meeting. He was not aware of minutes that required correcting and did not go back to staff after the corrections. He was also not aware that Ms Van Tonder was moved from foundation phase to intersen phase at the beginning of 2026. He was further not aware that the principal had appointed Ms Els (SGB post) to teach mathematics. Despite this, they used 2025 statistics and not 2026 statistics. Information about extra –curriculum needs was also presented. Sex (male v female) was not a criteria that was used as there was nothing guiding them on same.
28. He could not dispute that Ms Arumugam was only teaching natural science to English learners or that the Applicant taught mathematics and life skills to English and Afrikaans learners. There was no such thing as “the better teacher” or “better subject”. The issue was not to disrupt the school. He was not made aware that the Applicant had taught natural science before, however they did not ask what other subjects teachers taught or had taught before. Per the process they dealt with 2025 statistics and what was being taught at that stage. He agreed that out of the 3 DHs in the intersen phase, the Applicant had the longest service and if LIFO was applied, Ms Arumugam would have been identified.

Mr Franklin Voster (Principal)

29. Mr Franklin Voster, the school’s principal, testified that he was requested to attend an identification meeting. Prior to this they had had an identification meeting at school. The staff had decided that LIFO should be used. At the external identification meeting he presented the minutes of the staff meeting. Mr Blou and the unions alerted him to the fact that, per the Collective Agreement, LIFO was the last option to be used and the curriculum needs are to be used before LIFO. He presented the profile of the 5 DHs, including subjects they taught, number of classes and number of learners. They used a PPN ratio and the 2 foundation phase DHs were justified per the number of learners. Intersen phase justified 2 DHs and they had 3. They then looked at the DHs in the intersen phase. Ms Langeveldt was DH for languages, which included English and Afrikaans home language and additional language. She was accordingly excluded.
30. They were then left with the Ms Arumugam and the Applicant. The Applicant had 3 classes and 115 or 118 learners for mathematics grade 5. Ms Arumugam had 4 classes of grade 6 for natural science and technology and 185 learners. She also had 1 grade 5 class for natural science and technology. The deputy principal was also in the intersen phase and taught economics and management sciences and he had previously taught mathematics and natural science. In view of this, the least amount of classes and learners were affected by the Applicant’s identification. There were also 3 educators teaching natural science and 4 teaching mathematics. The Applicant had only taught 1 subject (mathematics) since he had been at the school (July 2022). They had considered the needs of the school in the identification. Sex (male v female) was not used as a criteria. He had gone to the meeting thinking that LIFO would be used and presented the statistics when same could not be used. He treated all his DHs equally.
31. The corrected minutes of the staff meeting had been taken back to the staff and they had signed acceptance thereof. R1 pages 1 to 6 were the corrected minutes and R1 page 11 was the acceptance of same, which the Applicant had signed. The corrections that were made to the minutes of the internal staff identification meeting were some terminology and some wording was incorrect. He agreed that the number of learners in grade 5 were more than the learner numbers for grade 6 in 2025. The composite timetable on page 10 of R1 indicated that the Applicant taught 36 periods in the 10 day cycle. Ms Arumugam taught 35 periods and Ms Langeveldt taught 34 periods in the said cycle. He agreed that the Applicant therefore taught more periods than the other two.
32. He had got an extra mathematics teacher in in 2026 as he had not wanted to expose learners to different teachers by splitting the class amongst the remaining teachers as he did not know what the outcome of the Applicant’s dispute would be. He wanted to keep the learners in grade 5 under one teacher for the interim for stability. They would, however, cope with the remaining mathematics teachers if the extra teacher was not there and the classes were split amongst the existing teachers. The Applicant had more periods and longer service and Ms Arumugam had more classes and more learners. They had not considered periods taught but number of classes and number of learners. There were other male teachers that could coach sport and could be role models. The Applicant and Ms Arumugam were competing for the same post level (PL2) but not the same post as they taught different subjects. There were 4 mathematics teachers before the Applicant was identified.

ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT

33. It is common cause that ELRC Collective Agreement 4 of 2016 is the relevant Collective Agreement. In terms of same the Circuit/District Manager together with the Principal shall identify the educators in addition, taking into account the following:
    B.6.4.2.1 The views of the educator staff of the institution as expressed at a formal meeting convened by the principal;
    B.6.4.2.2 The needs of the institution, more particularly in relation to its specific curriculum obligations, the number of classes, the timetable and the allocation of learners to classes;
    B.6.4.2.3 The Circuit/ District Manager shall take cognizance of the fact that there is not necessarily a direct relation between posts identified as in addition and an educator who will be declared in addition, as there may be more than one post with substantially the same duties attached to it;
    B.6.4.2.3 If a decision has to be taken regarding two or more educators competing for the same post, the principle of “last in, last out” (LIFO) shall be applied. …….
34. It confirms that the identification of educators in excess is made by the Circuit/District Manager together with the principal. The determination therefore lies with them. In getting to the determination of who is in excess they are required to consider certain things as set out in B.6.4.2.1 to B.6.4.2.4. In the current matter, the only view the staff held was that LIFO should be used. As per Mr Voster he was informed at the identification meeting that curriculum needs came before this and that LIFO was the last resort. The explanation given to Mr Voster, in my view, is in line with the terms of the said Collective agreement. The reason for my view in this regard will become clear in due course. There was nothing else form the staff to consider other than LIFO which would only possibly become applicable later. The position of the staff was effectively a position that could not be considered until it became relevant, which it did not.
35. As for the needs of the institution, it is clear, from the Collective Agreement, that what needs to be considered in terms of curriculum are number of classes, the timetable and the allocation of learners to classes. There is nothing stipulated about periods. However, even if I am wrong and same falls within timetable referred to, the Applicant had one more period than Ms Arumugam in the cycle. The Applicant had 3 classes and 115 or 118 learners for mathematics grade 5. Ms Arumugam had 4 classes of grade 6 for natural science and technology and 185 learners. She also had 1 grade 5 class for natural science and technology. Ms Arumugam therefore had more classes and more learners than the Applicant. These are both issues for consideration directly referred to. It is clear that curriculum needs of the institution were considered as per B.6.4.2.2. I cannot find any fault in this regard.
36. LIFO is dealt with in B.6.4.2.3, which confirms that if a decision has to be taken regarding two or more educators competing for the same post, the principle of “last in, last out” (LIFO) shall be applied. It is not disputed that the staff agreed on LIFO being used or that the Applicant was the longest serving of the 3 DHs in the intermediary phase. The Respondent, however, claims that LIFO is only to be used as last resort. From a clear reading of the section it is to be used when a decision must be taken between two or more educators competing for the same post. In the current matter there are clearly two or more educators, however, the further requirement of competing for the same post must be in place for LIFO to be triggered. Parties confirmed that the number of DH posts are allocated in terms of a ratio against number of educators and the school is, however, free to decide in which phases and for which subjects they will be allocated.
37. The Respondent claims that the Applicant and the other DHs were on the same level (PL2), but that they were not competing for the same post as they taught different subjects. I am in agreement with this. The school had to reduce 1 DH. The DH position, however, entails teaching of classes as well, which has a direct bearing the curriculum. As stated, curriculum is triggered from the start as consideration in getting to the decision of who is in excess. This was done. Eventually, the Applicant and Ms Arumugam were left. They do not teach the same subjects and therefore, in my view, cannot be competing for the same post. I believe this view is further supported by the emphasis on curriculum, classes and learners taught in the Collective Agreement.
38. The Applicant raised a various other issues such as favouritism from the principal, him being a role model for the male learners, him being the only male DH and internal meeting minutes not returned to staff. I do not intend dealing with same in detail as they are, in my view, not issues that would reflect on the Collective Agreement and/or possible breach thereof, except for the last point. It should be held in mind that the dispute the Applicant has referred is one of enforcement of a Collective Agreement. I will, however, state that on the evidence before me, I cannot conclude that there was any favouritism. The evidence was further that there are other male teachers who could be role models to the male learners. Finally, the undisputed evidence was that sex (male v female) was not a consideration in the process. I also do not see that same should be considered in terms of the Collective Agreement. The claim that the minutes of the internal meeting were not returned after corrections, before being taken to the meeting at Sonop is clearly not correct. The corrected minutes are, per the evidence, in R1 and the Applicant, amongst others, signed for same on page 11 of R1.
39. The crux of the Applicant’s claim is set out in his closing arguments, at paragraph 5.1 to 5.3. Firstly, at 5.1, that the Respondent has violated B.6.4.2.1 of the Collective Agreement. This is the consideration of the staff views. As stated above, the staff only had one view (LIFO) which, in my view, is only potentially triggered at a certain stage. The “trigger” never happened and as such it could not be taken into account. Given this scenario, I cannot conclude that there was a breach of this clause. Secondly, at 5.2, best interest of the child was not considered in that it was not considered that the Applicant taught a critical subject and that he was the only male DH. It is clear that the curriculum, including subjects, number of classes, number of learners and impact on learners were considered in the process. As far as him being the only male DH is concerned, this is not an issue used to determine who is in excess. It also cannot impact on the Collective Agreement he is claiming has been breached as it is not mentioned there.
40. The Applicant has specifically referred an enforcement of Collective Agreement dispute and as such must show a breach of same, not some possible general unfairness. For the record, I do believe there was in fact any unfairness in the process of identification. Thirdly, at 5.3, the LIFO issue and B.6.4.2.4. I have dealt with this point in detail above and will not repeat same here. In view of all the aforesaid, I cannot find that the Respondent has breached the said Collective Agreement in identifying the Applicant as being in excess. It is worth also noting that there is no record of any objection from either of the unions represented at the identification meeting. In fact they both signed off page 10 of R (Identification checklist).
41. The Applicant referred a dispute relating to the enforcement of a Collective Agreement (Specifically ELRC CA 4 of 2016). This effectively means that he is claiming that the Respondent has breached certain parts/sections of same.
42. Clause 69.1, of Annexure “C” (Dispute Resolution Procedures) of ELRC Resolution 6 of 2016, provides that the General Secretary may promote, monitor and enforce compliance with any Collective Agreement of the Council, within the scope of the Council and in terms of this section 33 and section 33A of the Act.
43. Clause 69.5 provides that the General Secretary may refer any unresolved dispute concerning compliance with any provision of a Collective Agreement to arbitration by a panellist appointed by the Council or the CCMA, as the case may be.
44. Clause 69.8 provides that a panellist, conducting an arbitration in terms of this clause 69 and section 33A of the Act, has the powers of a Commissioner in terms of section 142 of the Act, read with the changes required by the context.
45. Clause 69.9 provides that Section 138 of the Act, read with the changes required by the context, applies to any arbitration conducted in terms of this section.
46. In terms of section 138(9) of the LRA “[a] commissioner may make any appropriate arbitration award in terms of this Act, including, but not limited to, an award-
    (a) that gives effect to any collective agreement,
    (b) that gives effect to the provisions and primary objects of this Act,
    (c) that includes, or is in the form of a declaratory order.”

AWARD

47. The Respondent, the Department of Education: Eastern Cape, has not breached ELRC Collective Agreement 4 of 2016 in identifying the Applicant, Mr Dick Marais, as being in excess in terms of the 2026 PPN at Delrose Full Service School.
48. The Applicant is not entitled to the relief he seeks.

Clint Enslin
(ELRC) Arbitrator