By OBAKENG MAJE
The Ntokwe Primary School in Mokgareng village, near Taung, allegedly refuses to honour the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA)’s verdict.
This comes after the school ‘unduly’ terminated the contracts of four individuals, who were working as Education Assistants (EA). According to one of the Presidential Youth Employment Initiative (PYEI) beneficiaries, Karabo Morwe (23), her contract was terminated because she was pregnant.
“I applied for the programme hoping to get meaningful experience. However, I was so devastated my contract was terminated disruptively simply because I was pregnant.
“I was working as Educator Assistant and the principal said I was not fit to work. She also said she was more concerned about the health of the pupils and my safety. Even though I explained to her that being pregnant does not necessarily mean I am disabled,” Morwe said.
She said they took their matter to CCMA to seek recourse because they feel that the decision to terminate their contracts was unfair. Morwe said, now the CCMA has ruled the matter in their favour and the school must refuse to pay.
“The school owes me R20 200 and I would be happy if the principal pays up. I really need that money because I have a baby to take care of now. So, that money will come in handy,” she said.
Another Teacher Assistant whose contract was terminated because of sharing a surname with an SGB member, Ontlametse Makgwe (26) shared the same sentiments.
“My contract was terminated in April 2022 because I shared the surname with one of the SGB members. The principal said there was a circular that is out and it said those who are related to any staff member, SGB or teachers should recuse themselves from the programmes.
“Unfortunately, I was sharing a surname with one of the SGB members even though we do not know each other. According to my understanding, the woman in question is married to the Makgwe family,” Makgwe said.
The North West Education spokesperson, Elias Malindi said the department has received the outcome of the CCMA and they have referred the matter to their labour unit for advice.
“So, if we challenge the ruling, it will depend on the assessment from the labour unit. However, for now, we can just indicate that the matter has been referred to our labour unit. The decision will be taken after that process has taken place,” Malindi said.
Meanwhile, the CCMA Director, Advocate Cameron Morojane said: “The award in this matter was issued on 25 September 2022 ordering the payment by the respondent by no later than 30 September 2022. The applicants may approach the CCMA’s Vryburg office for further assistance in this regard.
“The enforcement of the arbitration in accordance with Section 143 of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (LRA), provides an effective and accessible way to enforce an arbitration award, where the award has not been complied with.”
Morojane further said, the award can be enforced as if, it was an order of the Magistrate’s Court scale. He added that, Section 143 (1) of the LRA says, an arbitration award issued by the commissioner is final and binding.
“It may be enforced as if, it was an order of the Labour Court in respect of which a writ has been issued. There is no longer a need for employees, who have had awards issued in their favour to approach the Labour Court for a writ of execution in the event of the employer’s non-compliance with the award.
“An arbitration award that orders the payment of a sum of money, (e.g: compensation, must be enforced or executed as if it is an order of the Magistrate’s Court,” he said.
The Guardian 