ARBITRATION AWARD

IN THE EDUCATION LABOUR RELATIONS COUNCIL ARBITRATION

Case No: ELRC1082-2526LP

DATE OF THE AWARD: 09 September 2026

Arbitrator: Thomas Mahasha

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

TLHAKO KWENA BENJAMIN APPLICANT

AND

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION LIMPOPO 1st RESPONDENT

AND

SCHOOL GOVERNING BODY OF PELABELA P SCHOOL 2ND RESPONDENT
:

DETAILS OF THE HEARING AND REPRESENTATION.

1. Arbitration hearing took place in terms of the referral of the matter by the employee to the Education Labour Relations Council, herein referred to as the “ELRC”. The employee referred an unfair labour practice dispute relating to benefits. The matter was partly-heard on 29 July 2026 at 113 Biccard Street, Polokwane offices of the Department of Education, Limpopo. The applicant appeared represented by Seopa Maroti Martin of SATDU, whereas the first respondent appeared represented by Rasebotsa Nthabiseng, Assistant Director of the Department of Education attached to grievances and dispute resolution directorate. ISSUES TO BE DECIDED.
2. Whether or not the respondent committed an unfair labour practice relating to benefits by not paying travel claims during term one to three of 2024, 6th February 2025, 6 March 2025, 12 March 2025, 22 April 2025, 7th May 2025, 9 May 2025, 12 May 2025, 19 May 2025, 22 May 2025, 26 May 2025, 28 May 2025, 29 May 2025, , 3, 9,19, 23; 30 June 2025, 25 July, 28 July 2025, 7, 8 13, 20, and 29 August 2025, 10 September 2025, and if so, to order the appropriate relief. BACKGROUND TO THE DISPUTE.
3. The applicant was the Principal of Pelabela Primary School at the time of the alleged non-payment of travel allowance. The school had norms and standards which has a certain percentage to pay for official travel. The respondent has a policy in place to reimburse educators for work related travelling. The applicant travelled during 2023, 2024 and 2025 and submitted claims to the School Governing Body for recommendation and Circuit Manager for approval of payment. Circuit Manager did not approve payment for 2024 term 1 to 3 because the applicant claimed at R6.50 tariff which was approved by the SGB, instead of R5.00 tariff known and approved by the Circuit Manager.
4. The applicant declared a dispute claiming payment of R 17 440.00. SURVEY OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT.
   APPLICANT’S TESTIMONY.
   Kwena Benjamin Tlhako’s testimony was as follows:
5. The SGB developed a Finance Policy increasing a tariff from R5.00 to R6.50 per kilometer because it had powers to do so. The amended finance policy was not taken to the Circuit Manager for approval because there is no policy in place that provides for such a procedure.
6. During the first to third term of 2024, he submitted his travel claims on time to the Circuit Manager for approval of payment. The Circuit Manager did not approve payment.
7. He reported his frustrations to the SGB. The SGB wrote a letter dated 10 December 2024 pleading with the Circuit Manager to approve payment at the tariff rate of R5.00 per kilometer. SASA (South African Schools Act) do not prohibit payment of claims submitted beyond a period of 60 days.
8. The Circuit Manager only approved claims from the 4th quarter of 2024. Claims for 1st to 3rd term of 2024 were not approved.
9. When cross examined he testified that the duties of a Finance Committee is to develop a finance policy which must be ratified and administered by the Circuit Manager. Although his claim at a rate of R6.50 was made in January 2024, Finance Committee only recommended an increase to R 6.50 on 13 February 2025.
10. The Circuit Manager had previously approved and corrected the amount claimed. She should have done the same with the claims he submitted at a higher tariff of R6.50.
11. He agreed that the Circuit Manager told him several times to amend the claims to reflect R5.00 per kilometer every time he submitted a claim. He sought advice from Governance official from the other Circuit. He was advised that there was nothing wrong with the R 6.50 tariff. He did not change the tariff until a visit by the Circuit Manager on 12 September 2024.
12. The Circuit Manager acted unfairly in not paying him using the money carried over to the next financial year. Prescription of 60 days did not apply to him because he did not claim for travel and subsistence allowance.

1ST RESPONDENT’S TESTIMONY.
13) Tlou Arone Manyelo testified that he was the secretary of the SGB in 2024. The applicant told the SGB that although the Circuit Manager had not approved the increased tariff, he had implemented it. The applicant was advised on several occasions to change his travelling rate to R 5.00. Circuit Manager went to an extent of visiting the school to advise the SGB that the R5.00 tariff was unacceptable.
14) The applicant was also advised by the SGB not to use the R 6.50 tariff to avoid forfeiture of his claims due to expiry of the period of 60 days. Applicant influenced the SGB to write a letter to the Circuit office pleading with the Circuit Manager that he be paid at a rate of R5.00.
15) Finance Committee meeting was never held to agree to a R6.50 tariff. Even if the Finance Committee had agreed to an increase, the correct procedure would have been for the Finance Policy be taken to the Circuit Manager for ratification. Educators were not made aware that they were being paid at a rate of R6.50. They only became aware during the Circuit Manager’s visit.
16) He saw the Circuit manager’s note on the claim book that stated “please use the R5.00 tariff”.

Linah Chokoe testified that she served as an SGB treasurer and also served in the Finance Committee. The applicant informed SGB that educators are complaining about a rate of R5.00 and that they want an increase. SGB asked the applicant if the Circuit Manager approved the tariff of R6.50. The applicant told the SGB that powers to increase the rate lies with the SGB. Both the SGB and the Finance Committee did not know if the tariff of R6.50 was approved by the Circuit Manager.
17) The applicant’s claims were disapproved many times because he claimed with a tariff of R6.50. He was told to lower his claims to R5.00 when he submitted his claims in January 2025. The applicant’s previous claims could not be paid because they have prescribed.

18. Motlapema Motlhatlego Joyce testified that she worked at Pelabela Primary School as an acting Principal since 29 February 2023. She knows the applicant as the Principal. At that time, staff members had a concern about a tariff which was at R5.00.
    She advised the applicant to take the matter to the SGB, and then to the Circuit Manager for approval. The applicant implemented the new tariff of R6.50 without knowledge and approval of the Circuit Manager.
19. The Circuit Manger could not approve payment for his claims because he used an incorrect tariff. Applicant was advised to amend his claims so that it could tally with information on the PEDO 15 (claim book by Finance Committee) and PEDO 16. The Circuit Manager could not adhere to the SGB request of paying the applicant without submission of the PEDO 15 and PEDO 16. The applicant did not erroneously submit the claim at an unapproved rate of R6.50 but was deliberate in his conduct.
20. Every 7th day of the month is the cut- off date for payment of claims. Because schools operate at an annual budget, there would be no available money in the new budget to pay the applicant. A budget of 5% for transport is calculated from the entire budget which is inclusive of monies carried over to the next financial year.
21. She could not comment to the version that the applicant could not reduce the rate to R5.00 because of the outstanding dispute at the ELRC.
22. SGB Policies must be ratified by the Circuit Manger or her delegate before implementation.
23. Maselaelo Caroline Morwana testified that she is the school Principal attached to Nkgele Primary School within Moloto Circuit. All SGB Policies must be ratified by the Circuit Manager. It was agreed within Moloto Circuit that tariffs should not exceed R5.00 per kilometer.
24. Money carried over to the new financial year assist in running the school from January to May until new norms and standards are received from the department.
25. Sarah Moyahabo Tlhako’s testimony was that she is the Circuit Manager attached to Moloto Circuit. She monitors and support schools. In 2021 she called all Principals of the 21 public schools and 1 independent school to agree on a uniform travelling tariff. They agreed to a R5.00 tariff per kilometer. She took such measures because most of the schools have low enrolment numbers which also affect the norms and standards received from the department.
26. 2024 term 1 to 3 claims could not be approved because the applicant used his own tariff, instead of the R5.00 tariff. She approved payment during the 4th term because the applicant complied with the agreed tariff. She advised the applicant to use the agreed tariff, which he did not do. She involved SATDU hoping that the matter could be resolved. It was not resolved. The applicant kept of submitting claims at an incorrect and unapproved tariff. She had authority to ratify every SGB policy. The applicant did not inform her about the amended tariffs nor submitted them for ratification.
27. It boggled her mind why only the Finance Policy was amended just three months before the end of the SGB term.
28. She recommended charges of misconduct against the applicant or disagreeing to be guided on tariffs since January 2024. He refused to amend his claims for a period of nine months.
29. She could not agree with the SGB to pay the applicant because his claim had prescribed. Educators are not allowed to claim anytime they want.
30. Item 3.3.1of the Directives provides: “SGB may pay travel and subsistence expenses relating to an official school activities; such expenses may not be greater than that would be payable to a public servant in similar circumstances”. 2nd RESPONDENT’S TESTIMONY.
31. Setwaba Makwena Anna testified that SGB members only sign claim forms if approved by the Circuit Manager.

ANALYSIS OF ARGUMENTS AND FINDINGS.

32. Section 186(2) (a) of the LRA, provides: “unfair Labour Practice ‘means any act or omission that arises between an employer and an employee involving-
    (a) unfair conduct by the employer relating to the promotion, demotion, probation (excluding disputes about dismissals for a reason relating to probation) or training of an employee or relating to the provision of benefits to an employee”.
33. The employee’s dispute relates to unpaid travel claims. The applicant’s case was that the respondent committed an unfair labour practice relating to benefits when not honoring payments for claims made on a new tariff approved by the School Governing Body. In the converse, the 1st and 2nd respondents’ case was that claims could not be processed for payment because the applicant used an unapproved tariff by the Circuit Manager. The main borne of contention was whether policies not ratified by the Circuit Manager were valid or not. The respondent’s case was that they were valid because the SGB had powers to develop policies.
34. I agree with the applicant that the power to develop policies lies with the SGB. It is however, equally correct that implementation of policies is the responsibility of different spheres of management in the department of education. It is clear that the departmental directives provide for ratification of all SGB policies by the Circuit Manager.
35. It is also common case that the amended Finance Policy that resulted in increment of a tariff from R5.00 to R6.50 was not submitted to the Circuit Manager for ratification. In other words, the Circuit Manager was not made aware nor informed about the amendments.
36. Directives provide for procedures that must be followed by the SGB when developing policies. One of the most critical procedure is that policies must be submitted to the circuit office for ratification. The main function of a circuit office is to monitor and support schools. In doing so, the circuit office monitors and supports schools’ expenses, which expenses must not only comply with finance policies, but must also promote the best interest of learners.
37. Norms and standards are not only aimed at reimbursing educators for the trips undertaken in line of performance of their duties, but must primarily meet the curriculum needs of the school. It is for that reason that school-based finance policies are to be ratified by the Circuit Manager before they could be implemented.
38. It was not the applicant’s case that all other policies were implemented without being ratified by the Circuit Manager. A reasonable conclusion to be made is that other policies were ratified by the Circuit Manager. The applicant’s decision not to submit the amended finance policy to the Circuit Manager for approval was not a bona fide mistake. He was aware that the Circuit Manager would not approve it, owing to the agreement reached with all the school Principals within Moloto Circuit not to exceed a tariff of R5.00.
39. The applicant did not fail to submit the policy for lack of knowledge that he had to, but was fully aware that the Circuit Manager would not approve it.
40. I agree with the Circuit Manager that there was no need for the applicant to treat amendment of the Finance Policy as a matter of urgency considering that it was already during the last term of the year. There is a reasonable possibility that the rush of amending the policy was aimed at taking unwarranted advantage of the outgoing SGB members he could easily manipulate to get what he wanted. The fact that the amended policy was not brought to the attention of the parents supports the notion that such an amendment was not done in good faith.
41. There was no evidence presented to justify increasing the tariff from R5.00 to R 6.50. In the absence of such a justification, a reasonable possibility is that there was no reason to increase the tariff; other than self-enrichment at the expense of the learners who are the primary beneficiaries of the norms and standards. Owing to approval by the Circuit Manager, the amended Finance Policy remained invalid for all purposes and intents. Even if there was a valid reason to increase the tariff, such reasons were subject to approval by the Circuit Manager.
42. It is common cause that the applicant submitted a series of claims for the Circuit Manger’s approval during 2024, and that claims for term 1 to 3 were not approved for payment.
43. The next question is whether or not in not approving payment, the first and second respondents committed an unfair labour practice.
44. It was not disputed by the applicant that every time he submitted claim forms, he was instructed to effect some corrections. He did not do so for a period exceeding nine months. The only thing he did was to ask the SGB to plead with the Circuit Manager to approve payments. Unfortunately, the request was not accompanied by PED 015 and PED 016. There was no reason provided by the applicant why at that stage he could not submit amended claim forms. In the absence of above, there is no basis for the Circuit Manager to process the claims.
45. It was clear that he was hell-bent to force the tariff of R6.50 through.
46. There was nothing wrong with the SGB in reviewing the standing R5 .00 tariff. The issue is that such an amendment was not submitted for approval. There is no evidence that the amended finance policy was ever submitted to the office of the Circuit Manager for ratification. It can therefore, not be said that the Circuit Manager or her delegate refused to ratify the policy.
47. It is worth mentioning that claims are not paid on the basis of letters submitted by the SGB. There are however, set standards and procedures known to the applicant. He deliberately took a decision not to adhere to the procedures, let alone the instructions given to him by the Circuit Manager. He is in my view, the author of his own misfortune.
48. In his capacity as an accounting officer, he should have known and appreciated that erroneous claims remained invalid until amended. He should have also known that an unratified finance policy remained invalid until ratified by the Circuit Manager. As an accounting officer attached to the school, he had a responsibility of ensuring compliance by submitting compliant claim forms. It was wrong of him to approve payment of claims submitted by the staff members at an unapproved rate of R 6.50 per kilometer. A reasonable person in his capacity as the school Principal should have known that in doing so, he subjected himself to a risk of being charged for irregular expenditure of public funds.
49. I therefore find that the applicant had failed to prove on a balance of probabilities, that the employer had committed an unfair labour practice relating to benefits.

AWARD.
50) The 1st respondent, Limpopo Department of Education acted fairly in not approving payment of erroneous claims submitted by the applicant.
51) The 2nd respondent, School Governing Body of Pelabela Primary School acted fairly in not processing payment pending amendment of erroneous claims submitted by the applicant to the Circuit Manager.
52) The applicant’s dispute is therefore dismissed.

MAHASHA TM

ELRC COMMISSIONER