IN THE EDUCATION LABOUR RELATIONS COUNCIL

Case Number: ELRC223-25/26FS

In the matter between

SADTU obo D A RAMMILE Applicant

and

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION: FREE STATE Respondent

PANELIST: A van der Walt

HEARD: ONLINE

DELIVERED: 16 September 2025

ARBITRATION AWARD

Details of Hearing and Representation
[1] This matter was set down for an arbitration hearing on 30 July 2025 on MS Teams. The applicant Ms Rammile was represented by Mr E Matseletsele a shop steward from the trade union, the South African Democratic Teacher’s Union. The respondent was represented by Mr T. Tsunke an official of the respondent, the Department of Education the Free State.

Issue to be Decided
[2] The issue to be decided was whether the applicant Ms Rammile, was entitled to be paid an acting allowance for acting in the position of a Head of Department (HOD) at the Boitekong Primary School in the Lejweleputswa District in the Free State Province during the fourth term of 2024 and the first term of 2025. At the outset of the proceedings, the respondent’s representative, Mr Tsunke advised the hearing that the respondent conceded that it owed the applicant employee payment of an allowance for having acted as HOD during the fourth term of 2024.
[3] What remains to be determined was therefore whether the applicant employee was entitled to be paid an acting allowance for the first term of 2025.

Background to the Dispute
[4] The applicant employee acted as HOD during 2024 after the HOD had retired. Upon her return to school in January 2025, the principal of the school requested her to continue to act for term 1. She agreed. On 6 February 2025, the principal advised the applicant employee that she had to stop acting in the position immediately.
[5] The applicant maintained that she continued to act and claimed the acting allowance for the fourth term of 2024 as well as the acting allowance for the first term of 2025.
[6] She referred a dispute to the Education Labour Relations Council. The dispute was not resolved at conciliation, a certificate of non-resolution was issued, and the matter was consequently referred to arbitration.
[7] It was set down before me for arbitration on MS Teams on 30 July 2025.

   Survey of Evidence and Argument

[8] The applicant Ms Rammile, testified that upon the school opening in January 2025, she had been asked by the principal Ms N J Leepo to continue to act as HOD at the school. She signed a job description which indicated that she was an HOD.
[9] The employee had not received payment for acting as HOD in the last quarter of 2024. Upon enquiry from the District Office, she was advised that the documentation requesting that her acting be approved was submitted to the Department.
[10] The applicant employee approached the principal and raised the issue with her. The principal contacted the Department and advised the applicant employee that she might not be paid. The applicant informed the principal that she considered approaching her trade union SADTU to assist her. The principal was dissatisfied with her approach. She advised the applicant that she had to cease in her acting position with immediate effect. This happened on 6 February 2025.
[11] The principal did not follow up the instruction to stop acting with any letter or documentation. The applicant accordingly continued to perform the HOD obligations until the end of the first term of 2025. She also continued to work from the office for HODs. At the end of the term when she fetched her file in the office documents indicating the supervision of educator’s work by the applicant had been removed.
[12] It was the applicant employee’s contention that she had not regarded the termination of the acting position by the principal a valid and official termination of her acting position. She accordingly continued to perform the work of an HOD.
[13] Ms V Leba also testified. She worked as an educator during the first quarter of 2025. She left the employ because of tension between her and the principal. Ms MJ Mosia also testified. She is the trade union representative of SADTU at the school. She could not testify directly on the facts of the case, but explained that the atmosphere at the school was tense because of the principal’s leadership style.
[14] Ms Leba testified that during the first quarter of 2025, the applicant employee had continued to perform HOD functions as she had during 2024. She inter alia monitored the books of Ms Leba.
[15] The principal, Ms N J Leepo testified as well. According to her, the applicant employee had acted as HOD during 2024. She advised her in January 2025 that the acting position will be renewed for the first term. The principal testified that when the applicant advised her that she had not been paid the acting allowance due for the fourth quarter of 2024, she investigated it and the District Office indicated that it had not received the required documents. Owing to this she ended the acting as HOD by the applicant with immediate effect.
[16] The applicant did not continue to act, and she could not prove to a department investigator that she had in fact acted during the first quarter of 2025. According to the principal there was accordingly no basis to pay any HOD allowance for that quarter.
[17] Both representatives submitted oral closing arguments. I shall refer to these arguments below.

Evaluation of Evidence and Argument
[18] The applicable clause in Part C of the Constitution of the ELRC which is a collective agreement reads as follows:
69.6 Despite clause 69.5 an educator may refer a dispute to the ELRC concerning the failure to pay an amount owing to that employee in terms of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act; the Employment of Educators Act; the Personnel Administration Measures (PAM), or any regulations or subordinate legislation promulgated by the Minister of Basic Education or MEC for Education in a respective province where an educator is employed as it relates to conditions of service, a collective agreement and a contract of employment.
[19] The respondent conceded that it owes payment of the HOD allowance to the applicant employee.
[20] It appears that the correct process had not been followed by the school principal and the SGB in appointing the applicant employee as HOD for the first quarter of 2025. There was no evidence of a recommendation to the District Director to approve the appointment. This and probably the problem of not receiving payment of an HOD allowance for the final quarter of 2024 was due to the failure of the principal to obtain the required approval.
[21] When the principal cancelled the appointment as HOD of the applicant employee, the appointment had not been approved yet, so there was no valid appointment as HOD in place for the first quarter of 2025.
[22] Whether the applicant employee continued to perform the HOD duties during the first quarter of 2025. She was not employed as acting HOD and for that reason cannot claim an acting allowance for the first quarter of 2025.
[23] The way the principal dealt with the applicant is disconcerting. There does not seem to have been any attempt by her to follow the correct procedure to enable the approval of a recommendation from the school.
[24] I also accept the applicant’s evidence that the cancellation of the acting position by the principal was a knee-jerk reaction by the principal. The manner in which the principal had acted should perhaps be investigated by the Department. The shop steward, Ms Mosia who testified as well alluded to the principal ruling with an iron fist and that she should not be crossed. This leadership style is unfortunate.

AWARD

[25] The respondent, the Department of Education: Free State is ordered to pay an acting allowance to the applicant employee, Ms Dimakatso Anna Rammile for acting as HOD during the fourth quarter of 2024, by no later than 31 October 2025.
[26] The respondent is not liable to pay an acting allowance to the applicant employee Ms Rammile for the first term of 2025.

Adriaan Van der Walt
ELRC Panellist