The Eastern Cape education department has accused the SA Democratic Teachers’ Union (Sadtu) of violating children’s rights and riding roughshod over its own constitution and union code of conduct.
Acting head of provincial education Sizakele Netshilaphala, says in court papers that Sadtu has consistently and deliberately thwarted the department’s attempts to properly allocate adequate teachers to all schools.
She implies the union had consequently prevented many children from receiving a constitutionally guaranteed basic education.
The department has fired both barrels at Sadtu in two high court applications which could see the union on the wrong end of a far- reaching interdict, as well as a humiliating judicial declaration that it has flouted its constitutional duty to children. Both the union and the department have agreed that the two applications be argued simultaneously in the Grahamstown High Court.
The two applications indicate a massive power struggle between the department and union for control of education.
In the first application, the department asked the Grahamstown High Court to declare that Sadtu has a constitutional duty to respect, protect, promote and fulfil the rights of children to a basic education and that it was – through its actions – flouting this duty and preventing the department from meeting its own constitutional obligations.
It wants the court to declare as unlawful and unconstitutional Sadtu’s instructions to its members not to participate in the department’s attempts to re-deploy its 4200 excess teachers to understaffed schools, where they are needed.
Finally, it wants Sadtu to take disciplinary steps against Sadtu provincial administrator Sindisile Zamisa, who it says is behind attempts to stymie teacher transfers.
In a separate, but related urgent court application, the department – reacting to threats by the union – wants the court to interdict it from disrupting, interfering with or obstructing the provision of education at schools or the operations of the department.
It also wants the court to interdict the union and its members from intimidating or threatening the department’s employees, consultants or contractors or unlawfully occupying or preventing access to any of its offices, schools or other properties.
Each year, after assessing schools’ needs, the department declares the teacher staff establishment for each school. In the process, teachers additional to the establishment are identified and they should be transferred to understaffed schools where they are needed after following a strict specified process.
But Netshilaphala says the department had been consistently and deliberately thwarted by the union in carrying out the task of identifying teachers who should be transferred or retrenched.
“As a result of this conduct by Sadtu the provincial department is being gravely prejudiced and impeded in complying with its constitutional obligation to provide education to learners at understaffed schools.”
The 4200 excess teachers make up over 6% of the 54747 teachers needed at provincial schools.
Because the union prevents these teachers from being transferred to schools where they are needed, the department has had to resort to filling vacant posts from external sources, while still paying the excess teachers.
This has resulted in gross over-expenditure on its personnel budget.
Netshilaphala says that after they launched the first application in July, Sadtu had threatened in the press to “disrupt everything” after elections so “they know who they are dealing with”.
She said it had therefore been necessary to resort to the second application for an interdict.
The department’s correspondent attorney in Grahamstown, Marius Wolmarans, yesterday confirmed the union was opposing both matters.
Education, Sadtu set for high court showdown
Acting head of provincial education Sizakele Netshilaphala, says in court papers that Sadtu has consistently and deliberately thwarted the department’s attempts to properly allocate adequate teachers to all schools.
She implies the union had consequently prevented many children from receiving a constitutionally guaranteed basic education.
The department has fired both barrels at Sadtu in two high court applications which could see the union on the wrong end of a far- reaching interdict, as well as a humiliating judicial declaration that it has flouted its constitutional duty to children. Both the union and the department have agreed that the two applications be argued simultaneously in the Grahamstown High Court.
The two applications indicate a massive power struggle between the department and union for control of education.
In the first application, the department asked the Grahamstown High Court to declare that Sadtu has a constitutional duty to respect, protect, promote and fulfil the rights of children to a basic education and that it was – through its actions – flouting this duty and preventing the department from meeting its own constitutional obligations.
It wants the court to declare as unlawful and unconstitutional Sadtu’s instructions to its members not to participate in the department’s attempts to re-deploy its 4200 excess teachers to understaffed schools, where they are needed.
Finally, it wants Sadtu to take disciplinary steps against Sadtu provincial administrator Sindisile Zamisa, who it says is behind attempts to stymie teacher transfers.
In a separate, but related urgent court application, the department – reacting to threats by the union – wants the court to interdict it from disrupting, interfering with or obstructing the provision of education at schools or the operations of the department.
It also wants the court to interdict the union and its members from intimidating or threatening the department’s employees, consultants or contractors or unlawfully occupying or preventing access to any of its offices, schools or other properties.
Each year, after assessing schools’ needs, the department declares the teacher staff establishment for each school. In the process, teachers additional to the establishment are identified and they should be transferred to understaffed schools where they are needed after following a strict specified process.
But Netshilaphala says the department had been consistently and deliberately thwarted by the union in carrying out the task of identifying teachers who should be transferred or retrenched.
“As a result of this conduct by Sadtu the provincial department is being gravely prejudiced and impeded in complying with its constitutional obligation to provide education to learners at understaffed schools.”
The 4200 excess teachers make up over 6% of the 54747 teachers needed at provincial schools.
Because the union prevents these teachers from being transferred to schools where they are needed, the department has had to resort to filling vacant posts from external sources, while still paying the excess teachers.
This has resulted in gross over-expenditure on its personnel budget.
Netshilaphala says that after they launched the first application in July, Sadtu had threatened in the press to “disrupt everything” after elections so “they know who they are dealing with”.
She said it had therefore been necessary to resort to the second application for an interdict.
The department’s correspondent attorney in Grahamstown, Marius Wolmarans, yesterday confirmed the union was opposing both matters.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Trending Now
Latest Videos