View Categories

27 May 2025 – ELRC895-24/25GP      

Case Number: ELRC895-24/25GP
Commissioner: PAUL PHUNDU
Date of Award: 23 MAY 2025

In the ARBITRATION between

SADTU obo Bamba Mahman
(Union/Applicant)

And

Department of Education – Gauteng
(Respondent)

Union/Applicant’s representative: In person
Union/Applicant’s address:

Telephone:
Telefax:
E-mail:

Respondent’s representative: Mr George Mbonde
Respondent’s address:

Telephone:
Telefax:

DETAILS OF HEARING AND REPRESENTATION

  1. This is an arbitration award issued in terms of Section 138 of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (as amended) and hereinafter referred to as the LRA. The matter was set-down for arbitration in terms of section 69 of the Council’s Dispute Resolution Rules. Circular 4 of 2023. The Circular is about the implementation of the 2024 Educators additional to Post Establishment, and Grading of Institutions with effect from 01 January 2024.
  2. The arbitration was conducted on 23 April 2025 at the Department of Education Boardroom, Old Hebron College, Mabopane.
  3. The Applicant was present at the arbitration and he was not represented. The Respondent was represented by, Mr George Mbonde, Its Employee Relations Official.
  4. The proceedings were conducted in English and were digitally recorded. I also kept handwritten notes.
  5. Both parties agreed and accepted bundle of documents into evidence, to which neither party recorded any objection. ISSUE TO BE DECIDED
  6. I am called upon to determine whether or not the Respondent has correctly implemented Circular 4 of 2023. Educator Post Establishment, placement of Educators additional to Post Establishment and Grading of Institutions with effect from 01 January 2024. BACKGROUND TO THE ISSUE
  7. The Applicant is in the employ of the Department of Education as an Educator at Filadelfia Secondary School. The Applicant would like to return to his previous school, Filadelfia Secondary School as relief.
  8. The Applicant is alleging that nefarious reasons were at play when he accepted the transfer from Filadelfia Secondary School to Theresa Park Secondary School.
  9. Conciliation failed and the certificate of non-resolution of the dispute was issued. The matter proceeded to arbitration. In terms of relief, the Applicant wished to be transferred back to Filadelfia Secondary School. SURVEY OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT ARGUMENT FOR THE APPLICANT
  10. According to the Applicant, the Respondent has admitted that the Applicant is a Mathematics teacher who has not been teaching Mathematics for the two previous years.
  11. The Respondent claimed that “if the Applicant returned to his previous school, Filadelfia Secondary School, it will cause disruption to the system and negatively affect efficiency.
  12. It is absurd to identify the only Mathematics teacher, who was teaching Physical Science and Natural Science.
  13. We would like to remind the Respondent that the Applicant was transferred from Filadelfia to Theresa park Secondary School in the middle of the year 2024 (14 June 2024).
  14. The Applicant was preparing his grade 12 Physical Science and Technical Science learners for the important trial examination. The Respondent did not raise the placement as a concern with potential to disrupt school activities.
  15. The same Respondent would be dishonest in claiming now that he has the best interest of the learners in heart.
  16. The Applicant should be reinstated to his former position as the Respondent failed to execute due diligence in the implementation of Circular 4 of 2023.
  17. On these grounds, the Applicant submit that the process was unfair. ARGUMENT FOR THE RESPONDENT
  18. The Applicant’s dispute is about fairness in implementing Circular 4 of 2023, with specific reference to clause 7.4.3. Circular 4 of 2023 deals with Implementation of the 2024 Educator Post Establishment, Placement of Educators Additional to Post Establishment and Grading of Institutions with effect from 1 January 2024.
  19. The Applicant refers to clause 7.3 which reads thus “Operational requirements for schools are based on, but not limited (which is the Respondent’s emphasis) to the following: (a) Change in learner enrolment. (b) Curriculum changes or a change in learners’ involvement in the curriculum. (c) Change to the grading or classification of an institution. (d) Merging or closing of institutions, and (e) financial constraints.
  20. The Respondent’s interpretation and application of clause 7.3 is that when the Respondent identifies educators to be additional or over and above the Post Establishment at their present institution due to operational requirements, the Respondent is not limited only to the above mentioned requirements. The Respondent should consider the totality of curricular needs of the institution to balance the need to maintain efficiency and allow for minimum disruptions in the system.
  21. The Applicant makes the point that in the grievance outcome, under Mr. Temba’s submission in bullet 4, it is stated that “there were three educators teaching Physical Science in 2023, one was identified i.e. Mr. Mahman. The Respondent concedes that the statement was erroneously captured.
  22. Mr. Temba submitted that he and his Deputy, Mr. Morake, had similar qualification specialization to the Applicant in so far as Mathematics & Physical Science were concerned. Bullet 6 is a contingency plan to balance the need to maintain efficiency and minimize any disruption that may be caused by the Applicant having to be placed to another institution in 2024 where his services would be deemed to be needed, then Mr. Morake and Mr. Temba as qualified Physical Science educators would teach as per their contractual obligations contained in the Personnel Administrative Measures (PAM) documents and the Integrated Quality Management System (IQMS).
  23. The Respondent confirms that the two were allocated Physical Science classes to teach in 2024. Even in the conclusion of the grievance outcome, the Respondent reiterates in bullet 3 that the Deputy Principal and the Principal should be allocated classes following the Applicant’s placement to another school where he would be gainfully utilized.
  24. It is rather opportunistic of the Applicant to want to be put in the same basket as Maths teachers to avoid being identified as additional. Indeed, he was not allocated Mathematics in 2023 because the school had enough Maths educators.
  25. According to PAM Chapter A, par. 3.1 (d) “there should be equitable distribution of workloads between various post levels and within post levels to ensure that one or two of the levels or educators is not over-burdened”. Par. 3.1 (e) states that” the expectation is that every educator must account for 1 800 actual working hours per annum”.
  26. The Applicant seeks as relief to be returned to his previous school, Filadelfia Secondary School. The Respondent wishes to argue against that because it will cause disruption in the system and negatively affect efficiency.
  27. The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, section 28 (2) states that “A child’s best interests are of paramount importance in every matter concerning the child”. The Applicant is currently placed at a school nearer his place of residence. The Applicant saves in terms of traveling costs and time. The Applicant is gainfully utilized at his current workplace. So, there is no prejudice that the Applicant can claim he is suffering with his current workplace.
  28. The Applicant falsely claims that his placement to another institution resulted in his salary and other conditions being affected and therefore he should be paid his salary for November and December 2023. The Applicant is employed as an educator under Employment of Educators Act 76 of 1998. The Applicant has been receiving his salaries in terms of his employment contract as an educator without fail, and his employment conditions have remained unchanged.
  29. Hostel allowance is not part of the Applicant’s employment contract under the Employment of Educators Act. Hostel allowance is a non-pensionable and additional allowance to the Applicant’s salary.
  30. The Applicant entered the employment relationship with the Respondent to teach. Hostel duties are not part of the Applicant’s core duties/ workload as an educator employed under the Act. Based on the above, it is the Respondent’s prayer that the Applicant’s case be dismissed.

ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT

  1. Circular 4 of 2023 is about Educator Post Establishment, placement of Educators additional to Post Establishment and Grading of Institutions with effect from 01 January 2024.
  2. It is common cause that the Applicant is employed as an Educator by the Respondent.
  3. It is common cause that the Applicant has been appointed as a teacher at Filadelfia Secondary School since 2013.
  4. The Applicant was transferred from Filadelphia Secondary School and placed at Theresa Park Secondary School late in in 2024 for reasons stipulated in the circular.
  5. There is no evidence before me showing or proving that the Respondent has unfairly implemented Circular 4 of 2023 especially when it comes to placement of the Applicant to the nearest school from his residence necessitated by the need to maintain efficiency and allowing for minimum disruptions in the education system.
  6. I am convinced by the Respondent’s submissions that the placement was necessitated by the operational needs of the Respondent. This aspect of the testimony was not disproved by the Applicant.
  7. It is my finding that the Respondent has provided reasonable and justifiable reasons for applying clause 7.3 of the Circular.
  8. I am satisfied and agree with the Respondent that clause 7.3 of the Circular identifies educators to be additional or over and above the Post Establishment at their present institution due to operational requirements, the Respondent is not limited only to the above mentioned requirements. The Respondent should consider the totality of curricular needs of the institution to balance the need to maintain efficiency and allow for minimum disruptions in the system.

AWARD

  1. The Applicant has failed to discharge the onus that the Respondent had unfairly implemented Circular 4 of 2023.
  2. The Applicant is not entitled to any relief.
  3. The Applicant’s application is dismissed.


ELRC PART-TIME PANELLIST: PAUL PHUNDU