The Education Labour Relations Council (ELRC) has ruled that the Limpopo education department committed an unfair labour practice by failing to pay a teacher an acting allowance after he managed a primary school for four years without a formal appointment.
It ordered the department to pay Mmakadi Eliya Letsoalo R274,000 for the period that he worked as acting principal. The ruling is expected to have broader implications for similar cases where educators are instructed to perform higher-level duties without formal appointments or compensation.
As a result of restructuring at his previous school, Letsoalo was redeployed to Masekwameng Primary School. At the time of redeployment, he held the position of head of department.
When he was redeployed, the principal, Mr Moabelo, was absent due to challenges at the school and was later seconded to the circuit office.
As the most senior teacher, Letsoalo was instructed by the circuit manager to take over the management of the school. He carried out the duties of a principal from May 3 2021 to July 24 2024 while continuing with his head of department responsibilities.
The circuit manager, when introducing Letsoalo to the staff and the school governing body, stated that he would be taking care of the school in the absence of the principal.
Despite performing these duties, Letsoalo was never formally appointed in writing as acting principal and was not paid an acting allowance. After repeated attempts to resolve the matter internally failed, he referred the dispute to the ELRC, arguing that he was entitled to compensation under applicable collective agreements and departmental circulars.
Letsoalo’s legal adviser alerted him to the provisions of circular S7/1/2 of 2005 and collective agreement 8 of 2002, which allude to the fact that he was entitled to an acting allowance.
The circular stated that as the senior educator, he should take over the management of the school. Furthermore, the head of department, in extraordinary circumstances, may intervene where the school governing body neglects to recommend any person for appointment as an acting officer in the circumstances that he should have been appointed.
The department opposed the claim, stating that no acting allowance could be paid without a formal written appointment and that the principal’s post was not vacant.
In formalising his claim for the acting allowance, Letsoalo wrote several letters to the circuit manager and regional director. When he did not get any joy, he then referred the matter to the ELRC.
In his cross-examination, Letsoalo insisted that he regards himself as having been appointed as an acting principal, and the circumstances were conducive to such an appointment. He conceded that he had no letter of appointment, though.
Malehu Masegela, the circuit manager for the Mamabolo area, testified that when Letsoalo reported at the Masekwameng Primary School, she introduced him to staff and the school governing body.
Those who instructed him should have ensured that they regularised their instructions by recommending him for formal appointment. This was not done.
— Piet Shai, ELRC panellist
She testified that she gave Letsoalo the responsibility of taking care of the management of the school in the absence of the principal as a senior educator at the school.
However, that did not mean that he was appointed as an acting principal, as he had no such authority. No process of appointing him as an acting principal was followed, Masegela said.
She said the provision relating to the payment of acting allowance required that he be appointed in writing following a recommendation by the school governing body.
She said the reason the former principal reported to the circuit office was that he could not be matched to any school in the circuit.
Masegela admitted receiving correspondence from Letsoalo, including several meetings she held with him. She said Letsoalo could only qualify for an acting allowance if he had a letter of appointment.
Under cross examination, she stated that the reason Letsoalo could not be appointed as acting principal was because the position was not vacant.
In his award, panellist Piet Shai said it was common cause that Letsoalo was not formally appointed in writing.
“However, there is an acknowledgement from the circuit manager [Masegela] that he was instructed to perform the principal duties in addition to his head of department duties.”
Shai said Masegela further conceded that had it not been for the fact that the department was unable to find a match for the principal, Letsoalo would have been appointed and an acting allowance would have been due to him.
“In other words, she conceded that the applicant qualifies for appointment in all respects save for absence of a written appointment,” Shai said.
He said the school governing body neglected to make a necessary recommendation.
“Should [Letsoalo] be prejudiced by the negligence of the school governing body? That would seem unfair if [Letsoalo] was instructed to perform the principal duties and he did so.
“Those who instructed him should have ensured that they regularised their instructions by recommending him for formal appointment. This was not done.”
In his award, Shai found that Letsoalo met all the requirements for an acting appointment.
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.