The department of education, which has been paying an Eastern Cape school principal on a scale lower than her post deserves since she was appointed in 2022, has been ordered to immediately reinstate her to the correct position and pay scale.
The Education Labour Relations Council ordered the department to adjust the principal’s notch to the correct scale and pay her more than R120,000 within 21 days of the order.
In the recent ruling, commissioner Siziwe Gcayi found that the principal had discharged the onus of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that the department committed an unfair labour practice against her.
The principal, from the Chris Hani district, was paid more than R29,000 less than she was entitled to.
She was offered the position after the recruitment process in Volume 5 of 2021/2022.
The P2 position was advertised in February 2022 with a salary notch of R421,473, but the department remunerated the applicant as a P1 school principal with a salary of R392,934.
She took the matter to the ELRC, seeking relief to be placed on the correct salary notch for a P2 post.
During the hearing, held in March and again in April 2026, she testified that in July 2022 she was offered the position of P2 school principal at the school.
She was represented by Naptosa.
She testified that she never received any communication from the department about the downgrading of the school.
She reported to the circuit manager that she was being paid incorrectly.
The circuit manager referred her to the HR section.
She approached HR and was advised to approach the deputy director, who informed her that she was being paid correctly.
She told the council that she suffered financial prejudice and that the incorrect salary affected her health.
She said she was attending doctors in Cala, had panic attacks, and that the circuit manager was aware of her health issues.
She sought to be placed on the correct P2 salary notch and to be paid outstanding monies from the date of assumption, amounting to R121,799.
The school has four educators.
The department led the evidence of one witness, Ndileka Benya, a deputy director in the department.
She testified that it was an error that the school was classified as P2.
She said there was an error in the bulletin and maintained that the appointment was incorrect and the school was P1.
She said it was unfortunate that the error was only picked up after all the steps had been completed, and that the principal was informed verbally of the error.
Gcayi said the ELRC collective agreement No 3 of 2006 on the grading of schools provided that “the salary level of a principal of a school is determined by the grading of a school, which is done in accordance with the number of educator posts allocated to a school in terms of national norms”.
“As per the evidence before the council, the grading of [the school] at the time of the advertisement of the post was grade 2,” Gcayi said.
“The respondent’s argument is that, starting in 2021, there were errors made by head office.
“The errors continued with the advertisement of the post and the letter of appointment.
“It was only on the PERSAL system that they picked up the error when paying the applicant her salary.
“It is highly improbable that all employees did not pick up the errors. It was business as usual.
“I accept that mistakes do happen, but not with sensitive information like this.
“It was the evidence of the respondent that the applicant was correctly paid because the school is P1.
“Mr Zozi asked Ms Benya, ‘If the arbitration award orders that the applicant be paid as a P2, what would be your comment?’
“Ms Benya’s response was that the applicant would be taken to a P2 school and paid the salary of a P2 school principal.
“With this response it became clear to me that the respondent can make means to rectify their conduct towards the applicant, as it is unfair and ongoing.
“The applicant is still subjected to an unfair labour practice by the respondent.”
She said at all times the principal knew she was offered a promotion by the department.
Even on her appointment letter, Mahlubandile Qwase, the then head of department, “congratulated her on the promotion”.
“What is placed before the council by the applicant is that the treatment she receives from the department is unfair to the level that it has affected her health,” Gcayi said.
“The circuit manager is aware that she attends doctors in Cala.
“For an employee to be offered a promotional post, and for it later to transpire that it is not a promotional post because it does not fulfil all the requirements of the promotion, does not constitute fair conduct on the part of the respondent.
“The defence by the respondent that all of this was caused by human error does not change the unfairness that the applicant is subjected to.
“I find that the respondent has committed a clear breach of the constitutional right of the applicant.
“As indicated, the applicant has a right to fair labour practice as guaranteed by Section 23 of the constitution.”
Daily Dispatch
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.