Introduction

SADTU Sol Platje site held its first site structure meeting at the new building in 222 Struben street. Five (5) substantive items were on the agenda for discussion and these were;

 Revival of the Sol Platje site
 PMDS
 OSD and the translation of posts: D/CES vs ASD/DD
 Update on the 201/2011 Salary negotiations.
 Way forward.

Revival of the Sol Platje site.

Discussions centered around the –ff- areas;

 Status of the site/branch vis a` vis the strength of the site-size and current leadership
 Relationship wth regards to sites of Sol Plaatje and 123 Schoeman Street.
 Legality of meetings wth regards to time off allowed and the issue of quorates
 The issue of ‘consultation wth membership in ‘strategic positions’ and the principle attendant to that relationship, with special reference to those members in structure leadership (visibility and meeting/s attendance.) Visibility of leadership through constant communication on issues.
 Control on attendance in meetings re: members whose attendance is issue-based.
 Extension of invitation/s to members in 123 Schoeman street for further meetings.

PMDS

 The item on PMDS was skipped due to time constraints and the consideration that the latter might not do justice to the substantiveness of the concerns around that item.

OSD and the translation f Posts: D/CES vs. ASD/DD

 National office requested an appraisal on how the processes unfolded around this issue.
Anecdotal evidence centered on the –ff-

o People were duped into believing that there were no material differences to the use of the different titles and the employment on either PSA or EEA, until OSD.
o Some of the posts were changed without proper consultation and when people questioned the process they were told they had already made their choices
o Posts for teacher and curriculum support were advertised as administrative posts (Ads and DDs)
o Some Directorates and senior managers arbitrarily decide whether to advertise the posts as curriculum support (D/CES) or as administration (AD/DD) without any clear-cut demarcations in job specifications or work outlook.
o It appeared to have been some creative way at cost-cutting (number crunching)

 National office made the –ff- inputs:

• The processes appears to have been a restructuring of posts definition/evaluation and therefore the process should have been subjected to collective bargaining. Relief could be sought around this argument.
• Concurred with the view that it was a cost saving exercise
• Indicated a similar misnomer in the Provinces
• Indicted that a task team had been established at the level of the ELRC and had dWorld Cup. Discussions would resume once normalcy returned to the country.
• The matter of office based staff seeking relief need to be elevated to the task team level.
• There are individual cases that have been taken up within the National Education offices but a new effort at class action might be necessary. The site would be kept informed of developments towards this objective.
• Treasury had also questioned the upgrading and identification of posts for monetary compensation and found the process wanting.
• 3 Collective agreements speaking to these processes were cited. (Collective 3 of 2009 of the PSCBC; Collective Agreement 4 of 2009 of the ELRC and ?)

Way Forward

 Date of the next meeting set as 26/08/2010
 Members from 123 Schoeman street to be part of the meeting
 Current leadership structure to package critical items for the next meeting
 More visibility in terms of communiqué required from structure leadership.