BOSETU asserts right to represent school managers
Mpho Mokwape | Monday October 24, 2022 06:00
The union is representing school managers who include school heads, deputy school heads, heads of department and principal education officers in a legal battle with DPSM regarding scare skills allowance.
In short, the union legal representative, Onalethata Kambai said the managers were legitimate members of the union and have every right to be represented but explained that they would not go further with the issue because DPSM had not raised the issue earlier.
“This contention was not raised in the answering affidavit. In the founding affidavit, the deponent stated that the claimants are all known personally to him and that they are members of the Union.
The response in the answering affidavit is that the deponent has no knowledge of the allegations made. On the notice of appeal, DPSM said the court a quo erred in holding that the respondent has a right to represent school managers because by virtue of their positions, they are members of management and that the union could not represent them while the issue was not raised in the answering affidavit,” he said.
He argued that the claim therefore, provided no basis for criticising the judgement of the High Court and that the DPSM cannot seek to raise it in the appeal. He explained that if the government employer agency had raised the issue in the answering affidavit, the Union would have had the opportunity to deal with it, presumably by reference to the constitution of the Union, which was what would determine who was eligible for membership, therefore the ground therefore also lacks substance.
On the contended issue of scare skills allowance, the Union pointed out that on March 4, 2008, the DPSM issued Public Service Management Directive No. 2 of 2008 which dealt with the “Attraction and Retention Policy for the Public Service” and provided for the payment of a Retention/Scarce Skills Allowance of not more than 40% of the basic salary.
Kambai said on April 23, 2008, the DPSM issued “guidelines for the Implementation of Public Service Management Directive No. 2 of 2008 on Attraction and Retention Policy” which stated that payment of the scarce skills allowance shall extend to officers of the same qualification in the Executive Cadre positions who supervise and manage officers qualifying and performing the duties of scarce skills occupations in accordance with the spirit of directive No. 2 of 2008.
According to the directive, the special skills allowance was reportedly to be paid to teachers who were teaching mathematics, physics, biology, chemistry and business studies.
He argued that the first DPSM’s position that where such teachers are promoted to one of the school management positions they do not qualify for the allowance was illegal. “The trade union contends that the refusal by public service management to make such payments and its attempts to recover such payments as having been made, are unlawful,” he said.
He noted that in the context of the directive, the purpose of the guideline was plainly to ensure that as a matter of staff retention and effective school management, qualifying teachers with scarce skills should not be deprived of that benefit under the directive when they are promoted, and “supervise and manage” others who have those scarce skills.
The lawyer pointed out that the consequence of “the withdrawal of scarce skill allowance” was that supervisors end up being paid a lower salary than their supervisees, a situation which was very undesirable in the hierarchy of the school management. On the other hand, the DPSM that was appealing the judgement against BOSETU on scarce skills allowance, argued that managers were no longer teaching or carrying the same duties, therefore, they were prompted to withdraw such allowance on that account.
Lawyer Boineelo Mosweu said teachers were subsequently promoted to executive positions and the skills they were no longer in use as they are not teaching or carrying out duties requiring those skills. “DPSM denies that they violated provisions of the guidelines of public service management and what they did was lawful and logical since those skills were no longer in use,” he said.
Meanwhile, the parties had the legal battle following the union’s contention that DPSM should have not stopped the allowance. It wanted the court to direct that their members be reimbursed emanating from arrears accumulated from the time the allowance was stopped to the date of payment. Judgement will be delivered on November 4, 2022.