30 January 2026 – ELRC706-25/26 GP

THE ELRC ARBITRATION
BETWEEN: ELRC706-25/26GP

ELTON EDMUNDS “the Applicant”
and IN

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION – GAUTENG “the Respondent”

ARBITRATION AWARD

Case Number: ELRC 706-25/26 GP

Date of award: 15 January 2026
Gcina Mafani
ELRC Arbitrator

Education Labour Relations Council
ELRC Building
261 West Avenue
Centurion
Tel: 012 663 0452
Fax: 012 643 1601
E-mail: gen.sec@elrc.co.za

DETAILS OF HEARING AND REPRESENTATION

1.1. The arbitration was scheduled for the 10th of November 2025 and proceeded as such. Both parties were present, the applicant, Elton Edmunds was represented by Ms. Rosanne Visagie the Union Official of NAPTOSA and the Respondent, Department of Education: Gauteng was represented by Ms. Amelia Ngwenya the Employee of the Respondent.

1.2. The arbitration was initially held virtually however due to connectivity issues, we proceeded face to face.

1.3. The arbitration was concluded on the 27th of November 2025.
1.4. The Applicant commenced with his evidence.

1.5. Before the start of the arbitration process, the Applicant submitted his bundle of documents which was later marked Exhibit “A1”, the Respondents also submitted their bundle of documents which was later marked Exhibit “R1”.

1.6. The parties agreed to file their closing arguments by close of business on the 8th of December 2025.

1.7. The submissions of both parties were carefully considered but will not be repeated herein as contents basically mirror what was put to the parties during the leading of evidence and cross examination in the arbitration.

PRELIMINARY ISSUES
2.1. The parties had not conducted the Pre-arb, the Arbitrator allowed the parties to proceed with the pre-arbitration meeting. The parties agreed that there were no prospects of settlement in this matter.
BACKGROUND
3.1. The Applicant Mr. Elton Edmunds is a PL1 Educator at Bryanston High School ( Johannesburg East District) He took a voluntary demotion from Westbury High School ( Johannesburg North District) in June 2025 to Bryanston High School.
3.2. Mr. Edmunds was faced with a difficult decision to accept a voluntary decision to accept a voluntary demotion or risk his life in danger. Mr. Edmunds opted for a voluntary demotion from PL2 to Pl1.
3.3. When Mr. Edmunds started in Bryanston High School he was placed on notch 173 = R 351 972 per annum. He is however adamant that the Department placed him on an incorrect notch, he should have been placed on notch 213 = R 441 483 per annum which is within the range of the PL1 educator’s notch.
3.4. Dissatisfied, the Applicant referred the dispute to the ELRC for Unfair Labour Practice, Interpretation and Application of Collective Agreement.
3.5. The arbitration is in respect of a referral by the Applicant for an alleged unfair Labour Practice relating to the interpretation and Application of the Collective Agreement as provided for in Section 186(2) ( a) of the LRA Act 66 of 1995. Given the above the Commissioner is required to decide whether the voluntary demotion and transfer due to change in circumstances should be viewed the same as someone who has retired or resigned.
APPLICANT’S EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS
Applicant’s first witness
MR. ELTON EDMUNDS

4.1. The Applicant testified under oath and stated that he is a qualified educator, that he was at Westbury High School for over 20 years, he taught at the same school he matriculated in.
4.2. He testified that he was threatened by a learner at the school, and he feared for his life.
4.3. Mr. E Edmunds was appointed as an PL 1 Educator at Bryanston High school in June 2025, this was after he had taken a “voluntary” demotion and transfer from Westbury Secondary School where he was a PL 2 Educator.
4.4. Mr. E. Edmunds took this “voluntary” demotion and transfer due to emotional and physical stress and trauma he experienced being a Departmental Head (PL2) at Westbury Secondary School.
4.5. Westbury Secondary School is situated in Westbury Community and this school and community is plagued by gangsterism and violence and this has had an adverse effect on Mr. E. Edmunds’ emotional and physical wellbeing.
4.6. Mr. Edmunds started the inter-district single transfer process in November 2025, but it was only approved in June 2025. Mr. Edmunds had to agree to the “voluntary” demotion since the only substantive vacant post that was available at Bryanston High school was only a Post Level 1 post and Mr. E. Edmunds was on a Post Level 2 educator position at Westbury High School.
4.7. The Applicant conceded that he signed the acceptance letter on the 24th of April 2025.
4.8. He denied that his case is covered by Chapter B 8.5.2.1 b
4.9. He testified that relocation means the same as inter district transfer. This means that you are moving from one school district in a province to another school in a different district in the same province. This means that there is no break in service. Mr. Edmunds moved from Johannesburg North District to Johannesburg East District in the Province of Gauteng.
4.10. Mr. Edmunds was aware that the post at Bryanston High School was a PL 1 post and for him to accept the post he would have to take a “voluntary” demotion from PL 2.

APPLICANTS 2ND WITNESS
TSEKO MARELETSE (Director HR TS-TS Transaction Services / Transversal Support)

5.1. He testified under oath and stated that he started working for the Department in December 1996 that makes him 29 years in the Department.
5.2. He explained that previously there were salary levels, educators would be appointed on salary level 6 and 7 for promotional posts, salary level 8 for those that were not qualified they would be appointed on lower-level salary scale. That has now been done away with, now notch numbers are used, they are determined by PAM.
5.3. Educators with B.Ed. degree get appointed on notch code 164 that is the entry notch. National Diploma is lower than 164.
5.4. Explaining the difference that occurred in 2018 and 2019 he stated that there was a cost-of-living adjustment and percentages were affected, it was no longer 1% some had a difference of 0.3 and 1.2 they were inconsistent.
5.5. He testified that the maximum scale for PL1 educator as per page B37 R326
5.6. He testified that it is possible for an educator who has been in the system to be on notch 326, but it depends on the history.
5.7. Pl2 is a Departmental Head, they start on notch 210 to 392.
5.8. PL1 educator appointed as a PL2 Department Head it’s a promotion, depends where they are sitting, they move 12 notches up, it also depends on their experience. If the educator is on 206 and they get DH post, they calculate from 206 to 218 which is 12 notches up.
5.9. He confirmed that relocation does not mean break in service, he confirmed further that there was no break in the Applicant’s service.
5.10. He testified that the letter on B19 was signed by the Deputy Director Johannesburg East District, she reports under Director Dan Mametse and the letter explained how the educator would be affected. The policy referred to in the letter is PAM B8.5.3 Government Gazette No 46879 of the 9th of September 2022. He confirmed that the second paragraph she referred to in her letter is incorrect.
5.11. B 8.5.2 talks to educators who are re appointed after a break in service.
5.12. He confirmed that B is applicable to Edmunds even though he did not retire or resign.
5.13. He confirmed that there is a new Government Gazette of March 2025, and when there is a new policy there is protocol that is followed to ensure that all the officials are acquainted with the new policy. He confirmed further that this is a national policy and should be used for uniformity.
5.14. He testified that voluntary demotion is the same as the ordinary demotion according to B, 8. 7 and policy has to be implemented.
5.15. Under cross examination the witness was asked to read R 28 (B8.5.2.1 B) which reads “Should an educator resign or retire and come back in service on the lower post level and has more than 6 years of uninterrupted service on any post level such an educator shall be awarded additional 6 notches to the minimum entry notch of the post to which he/ she is appointed”. He confirmed that the Applicant’s condition is the same as a person who has resigned and his break in service or not does not make any difference.
5.16. He explained that the Applicant was appointed on notch 164 when he took the voluntary demotion and then granted 6 notches up to 176 in line with the Directive of B 8.7
5.17. He reiterated that the official made an error in the letter of Appointment and confirmed that the figures on page B26 are correct. He stated that it is very common to make errors as these are people, further they use templates. He made an example of the dates on the same letter, the date was 13 November 2025 and that did not render the whole appointment incorrect, it actually shows that errors do happen.
5.18. He stated that the correct Gazette that should have been used in one on page 12 Bundle R. The amendment was already in effect.
5.19. The Applicant accepted the conditions as he started at the new school on the 1st of June 2025.

APPLICANTS 3rd WITNESS
DORAH MOLOI (Chief Director TS Transversal HR Services)

6.1. The Chief Director Ms Dorah Moloi testified under oath and stated that she has been in this position for the past 7 years and 39 years in the Department. She was previously in Operations Management.
6.2. She testified that there were changes in 2018 when equalization was introduced, they had to factor in 0.2% to existing salary scales, 0.3 in 2019 and that had an impact on the notches, the 6 notches increase now was 12 = 12%, that had an impact on the Collective Agreement of 2018 which addressed the measures regarding the educators who return to the system.
6.3. It purported that an educator who comes into the system may have been in the system after a break in service on the salary level that is lower and has 6 years uninterrupted services will be appointed on PL1 164 starting salary notch. This employee who starts on Pl1 will be awarded 6% or 12 according to the Gazette this year in March it intends to address conditions of service.
6.4. It has an insertion on PAM reviews clauses in PAM B 8.7. that is the insertion of the Gazette. It says the salary applicable to an educator who is appointed to the lowest notch/ demotion/ down grading of post the insertion is clarifying how demotion should be handled. That is the reason from her understanding. It also goes on to say it must be read with PAM of 2022 B 8.5.2.1 B and D and she confirmed that that is what she was referring to with the insertion.
6.5. Annexure B 12.1 Business Rules indicates the operational application of policy. It explains how the incremental implementation should unfold when we deal with salary scales effectively.
6.6. She confirmed that the Applicant did not have a break in service, and therefore Clause B would apply because he as more than 6 years of uninterrupted service and was appointed to the lowest post level. Its an issue of principle, if a person has 6 years or more, they should be awarded 6 % = 12 notches. The Applicant was not appointed to a higher post level but to a lower post level.
6.7. She reiterated that the insertion guides the demotions, although there is no B.8.5.8.3. in the Government Gazette the insertion guides the demotions.
6.8. She reiterated that he did not resign or retire however the policy gives principle. Where policy is involved, personal matters are subjective and should not be entertained.
6.9. She testified that when there are new policies the responsible source writes to the HOD who cascades to the relevant branches, they engage for their own understanding, it gets taken down through workshops or memos to the staff.
6.10. She stated that the writer of the appointment letter may not have been aware of the amendments in the Government Gazette, the relevant clause is the new Gazette.
6.11. If you take a demotion the insertion says you are appointed at entry level and because of the 6years or more experience 6% is given.
6.12. She confirmed under cross examination that the figure in the appointment letter is correct, 6% is the recognition of experience.
6.13. The Applicant was on R467.448 as a Departmental Head notch 225, then as a PL1 after Demotion plus 6% recognition of experience moved from 164 to 176.
6.14. Although he did not retire or resign the principle applies, B becomes relevant because of his experience which is more than 6 years see page B 17 (b). The insertion highlights the event of demotion, the principle remains.

RESPONDENTS EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS
1st Witness for the Respondent
BONGI MEMEZA (Deputy Director THRS Transversal Human Resources Services)

7.1. She testified under oath and stated that she has been in this position since 2012.
7.2. She testified that the letter on bundle B page 26 was in response to a request for transfer by HOD to a PL1 post. She explained that the PL1 is lower than the PL2, when a person lowers their rank, it affects the salary. She had the responsibility to write to him and advise him of the implications.
7.3. Before the amendment, when a person is lowered, they would be reduced from top down, now with the Amendment they recognise the experience of 6 years and above. If their experience is lower than 6 years, they remain on notch 164 which is the entry level. The Applicant’s experience brought him from 164 to 172.
7.4. When referred to page 17 she admitted that this was a typo, they use templates and that is the only explanation. This was not an appointment to a higher post level, the Applicant took a voluntary demotion
7.5. She reiterated that the intention was to ensure that the Applicant is afforded all the information before hand, he was afforded the opportunity to be notified of the implications on salary. He received the letter on the 25th of April 2025.
7.6. Ms Memeza confirmed that she was familiar with the PAM document, the amendments are just that, they only need to familiarize themselves with the amendments.
7.7. With the demotion 6% applies on 6year’s experience and more, the Applicant had no break in service. The principle of 6% recognition of experience is applicable.

ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE

8.1. A dispute over the Interpretation of a Collective Agreement exists when the parties disagree over the meaning of a particular provision and a dispute over that application of a collective agreement arises when the parties disagree over whether the agreement applies to a particular set of facts or circumstance.
8.2. Section 23 of the LRA provides that the Collective Agreement is binding on the parties to it and also takes precedent over the provisions of the Act for the whole period of that Collective Agreement.
8.3. When Interpreting Collective Agreements arbitrators should follow the judgement of the LAC in North East Cape Forests v SAAPAWU & others (2) 1997 (18) ILJ971 (LAC)
A Collective Agreement in terms of the Act is not an ordinary contract and the context within which a collective agreement operates under the Act is vastly different from a commercial contract. Froneman DJP has indicated that the primary objects of the Act were better served by a “practical approach to the Interpretation and Application of Collective Agreements rather than by reference to purely contractual principles”. This is not to say however that the ordinary principles of interpretation of contract are never appropriate when interpreting and applying collective agreements. In Northern Cape Forests the Court merely stressed that the interpreter should ask the further question whether an interpretation yielded by these principles accords with the objectives of the LRA. The fact that a collective agreement is a written memorandum which is meant to reflect the terms and conditions to which parties have agreed at the time that they concluded the agreement. The Courts and the arbitrators must therefore strive to give effect to that intention. Thus, the Courts frequently apply the parole evidence rule- that is that evidence outside the written agreement itself is not generally permissible when the words of the memorandum are clear when interpreting collective agreements”.
8.4. The dispute in this particular instance is about the interpretation of clause The Amended PAM of March 2025 which says
The same provisions as in paragraph B.5.2.1 (b) and (d) apply
B.8.5.2.1 An educator who is appointed after a break in service shall always be appointed to the entry level salary notch code of the salary band of the post to which he/she has been appointed under the following conditions:
(b) Should and educator resign or retire and come back in service on a lower level and has more than 6 years of uninterrupted service on that particular post level, such an educator shall be awarded additional 6 notches to the minimum (entry) notch of the post which he/she is appointed.
8.5. The Applicant argued that he did not have a break in service, did not resign, and did not retire therefore this clause does not apply to him. However, all the witnesses of the Respondent agreed to say that the Applicant’s salary is in line with 8.7 (taken from Gazette 2022) which reads ‘the salary applicable to an educator who is voluntarily appointed to a lower post / level demotion / whose appointment is a downgrade from his / her current post (voluntary) the same provision as in Paragraph B.8.5.2.1. (b) The provision in para-B.8.5.2.1 (b) comes from the gazette 2022 which when read alone speaks to educators who resigned and are retired then come to the system. The same provision is applicable to those who took voluntary demotion as in the case of the Applicant according to the new insertion of March 2025 of PAM.
8.6. Government Gazette No 52227 of 7 March 2025 states “The following paragraph shall amend Chapter B of the Personnel Administrative Measures by replacing the paragraph with the same numbering. The amendment in this paragraph will apply retrospectively to the date of publishing of PAM Government Gazette No 47295 of 2022.
B.8.7. Salary applicable to an educator who is voluntarily appointed to a lower post level / demotion / whose appointment is a downgrade from his / her current post (voluntary)
The same provisions as in paragraph B. 8.5.2.1. (B) and (d) apply.
The Insertion of 2025 clearly states that the same provisions as in paragraph B.8.5.2.1. (b) and (d) apply to the educators in B.8.7. Applicant did not have a break in service, and therefore Clause B would apply because has more than 6 years of uninterrupted service and was appointed to the lowest post level. If a person has 6 years or more, they would be awarded 6 % = 12 notches.
8.7. The Applicant contended that the letter of appointment contained internal contradictions, and the calculations relied upon were inconsistent with the clause cited.
8.8. The respondent submitted that the Applicant’s argument was valid, however, it was contended that the official who signed the letter of appointment cited an incorrect clause in error. The Respondent explained that standard templates are routinely used, which may have resulted in the insertion of the incorrect clause. Notwithstanding this error, the Respondent maintained that the calculations were correct. It was further submitted that officials are fallible, as demonstrated by the incorrect date reflected on the letter of appointment. This argument, the Respondent contended, corroborates the calculation by the official.
8.9. Be that as it may, I am guided by the principles of Interpretation and Application of Collective Agreements as expounded in the Northeast Cape Forests Judgement above that the correct interpretation of the Collective Agreement should accord with the principles and objectives of the Labour Relations Act.
8.10. The Courts and Arbitrators must strive to give effect to the true intention of the parties as reflected in the written memorandum which reflects the terms and conditions to which the parties have agreed at the time, they concluded the agreement.
8.11. I have no doubt that it was the intention of the parties to the Council that Salary applicable to an educator who is voluntarily appointed to a lower post level / demotion / whose appointment is a downgrade from his / her current post (voluntary)
The same provisions as in paragraph B. 8.5.2.1. (B) and (d) apply.
8.12. I accordingly make the following award