IN THE EDUCATION LABOUR RELATIONS COUNCIL HELD VIRTUALLY
In the matter between
SAOU obo Olive du Plessis Applicant
and
Department of Education: Eastern Cape Respondent
ARBITRATOR: Andre Swart
HEARD: 26 July 2024
CLOSING ARGUMENTS: N/A
DATE OF AWARD: 31 July 2024
SUMMARY: Compliance Order – Contractual Compliance – Failure to remunerate in terms of appointment letter.
ARBITRATION AWARD
PARTICULARS OF PROCEEDINGS AND REPRESENTATION
1. The arbitration was conducted on 26 July 2024, it was heard virtually via MS Teams, present was Mrs. Olive du Plessis the Applicant who was represented by Mrs. Venita van Wyk, the Respondent was presented by Mr. Euan Hector an official of the Respondent
THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE
2. I am required to determine whether the Respondent has remunerated the Applicant in compliance with the agreed terms and conditions of her employment.
THE BACKGROUND TO THE DISPUTE
3. The Applicant was employed by the Respondent as a principal at Paul Sauer High School on 19 July 2019, her starting salary notch was R495213.00, however she was not remunerated at this notch.
4. Based on the content of the bundle presented the matter was referred to the ELRC as an unfair labour practice dispute and condonation was granted, the matter then proceeded until the Applicant was advised that the dispute was one of compliance, the present referral was made once the Applicant became aware that this is a compliance issue.
5. There were no preliminary issues raised, nor were any jurisdictional challenges brought.
NARROWING OF ISSUES
6. There is no dispute between the parties that the Applicant was incorrectly remunerated since her employment, and this resulted in her being underpaid.
7. Parties agreed that the Applicant’s starting notch was R495213.00 but that she was incorrectly placed at R427839.00.
8. The Respondent had conducted a PERSAL exercise and determined that the Applicant was underpaid by R276988.86 for the period from appointment to present and that she should currently be at the R595530.00 notch.
9. The Applicant agreed with the calculations of the Respondent.
SURVEY OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT
10. I have considered all the evidence and argument, the Labour Relations Act no. 66 of 1995 (LRA) requires brief reasons, as such I have only referred to the evidence and argument necessary to substantiate my award and was follows is a summary of the submission of the parties.
11. All evidence was presented under oath/affirmation.
The Applicant’s Submission’s
12. Mrs. Olive du Plessis submitted that she was appointed as the principal at Paul Sauer High School in July 2019 at a starting notch of R495213, however the Respondent had not paid her in terms of the Appointment.
13. She raised the matter internally and there was agreement by the Respondent’s manager that she had been remunerated at the incorrect notch.
14. There were no questions posed to her in cross-examination.
The Respondent’s Submission’s
15. The Respondent called no witnesses.
ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT
16. In the present matter all the facts are common cause, the Applicant was employed as a principal during July 2019 at a starting notch of R495213.00 but she was remunerated at notch R427839.00.
17. The bundle contains the appointment letter confirming the R495213.00 notch as such I have no reason to reject the submission of the parties before me.
18. The parties are also in agreement that the Applicant is owed R276988.86 as this is the underpayment she had experienced due to the incorrect notch being used to remunerate her.
19. In addition, the Respondent confirmed that the Applicant should currently be remunerated at the R595530.00 notch.
20. When I consider the evidence presented and the common cause facts, it is my finding that the Respondent had incorrectly remunerated the Applicant by failing to implement the conditions of employment specified in the appointment letter.
21. It is further my finding based on the common cause facts that the Applicant’s notch should be corrected and that she be paid monies owed to her.
22. In the premises I make the following award.
AWARD
23. The Applicant has succeeded in proving that the Respondent had failed to comply with the terms and conditions of her appointment.
24. The Respondent is ordered to pay to the Applicant and amount of R276988.86 this being monies owed due to underpayment by no later than 15 September 2024.
25. The Respondent is further ordered to correct the Applicant’s salary notch to R595530.00 with effect from the date of this award, the Applicant is to commence receiving her corrected salary with effect from August 2024.
26. There is no order as to costs.
Panellist: Andre Swart