TSC REVERSES DECISION TO TRANSFER ST MARK’S HEAD TEACHER

MBABANE – The TSC has reversed its decision to transfer St Mark’s High School Head teacher Khanyisile Bhaa Shabangu to Fonteyn High School.
The Teaching Service Commission (TSC) has agreed to revoke the letter of transfer, which would have seen Shabangu transferred to Fonteyn High School. This would have necessitated the transfer of the Head teacher of Fonteyn High School, Mangaliso Dlamini, to St Mark’s High. Yesterday, Crown Counsel Sibonginkhosi Dlamini informed the Industrial Court that the TSC would no longer effect the transfer.  The last time the matter was in court, Crown Counsel Sibonginkhosi had requested a postponement to consult with the TSC, as Shabangu had challenged her transfer on the grounds that she was purportedly not consulted. He stated that the consultation was likely to result in an amicable resolution. When the matter resumed yesterday, Sibonginkhosi announced that they had held a meeting with the TSC and, despite some initial difficulties, had reached a breakthrough.

Matter

“We promised the court that if possible, we would advise our client regarding some aspects of the matter. Indeed, we did advise our client via correspondence and meetings, and despite difficulties, we made a breakthrough. The client (TSC) agreed that they would not effect the transfer,” said Sibonginkhosi. According to Sibonginkhosi, the TSC ultimately agreed not to implement Shabangu’s transfer. However, the Crown Counsel informed the court that the official instrument – the letter revoking the initial letter of transfer – was still outstanding. He stated that he believed the instrument was being processed and was supposed to be finalised by the close of business on Monday. However, it was still pending yesterday. Sibonginkhosi said as soon as the instrument revoking the transfer letter was finalised, it would be provided to the court for its attention.

On the issue of costs, Sibonginkhosi submitted that the ‘respondents may have been in the wrong, but as soon as we recognised our error, we made immediate amends to resolve the matter amicably.’ “In light of the fact that the employer-employee relationship still exists between the parties, we urge the court to be lenient on the respondents and order that each party bear its own costs,” submitted Sibonginkhosi. Shabangu’s attorney, Siphamandla Simelane of Robinson Bertram, appreciated the efforts of Dlamini and the TSC to resolve the matter as soon as possible. On the issue of costs, Simelane said he wished to communicate with his client, the St Mark’s High head teacher, regarding the latest development and the issue of costs. Judge Muzikayise Motsa advised Simelane to take into account the respondents’ efforts at resolving the matter.

He emphasised that this was particularly relevant given that they had not yet had an opportunity to see the instrument in question. The matter was postponed to next week Tuesday by mutual consent. In this matter, Shabangu disputed that she was consulted on the transfer. TSC Executive Secretary Nhlanhla Dlamini, in the commission’s answering papers, submitted that the head teacher was consulted prior to the transfer. She argued that the commission failed to annex the letter, if any, that purported to invite her to appear before the TSC for the purpose of making representations on why she should not be transferred to Fonteyn High School. She stated that the TSC did not disclose the date of the purported consultation and who was present during that consultation process.

Shabangu further submitted that the commission conspicuously did not furnish the court with the minutes of the consultation meeting to prove that it took place. “This seems to me like a belated attempt by the TSC to cover up their flagrant disregard of the law by transferring me without due process and without a substantial reason,” the applicant stated. “I deny that I was ever consulted by the TSC in November 2024,” she submitted.

Denied

Nhlanhla denied that there are routine visits to his office at the TSC. He also denied that the consultation was an informal conversation. “I cannot call my staff just for an informal conversation,” said Nhlanhla. “The reason the applicant (Shabangu) was in my office on that particular day was solely for consultation regarding the redeployment.The only invitation to my office is purely professional. I have no time to entertain visitors in my office because there is always a queue. The applicant has never come to my office unless it is official.”

The head teacher, according to Nhlanhla, failed to demonstrate to the court that there was no consultation prior to the transfer. He stated that Shabangu denied that there was any consultation, while in her affidavit she admitted that they held a consultation, which she labelled as an informal visit. Nhlanhla also disputed that he told the head teacher that it was a rumour. As the secretary to the commission, he could not spread rumours as it is against Section 20 of the TSC Act and the code of conduct. He submitted that he could not call his personnel to his office just to spread rumours. “My office is established in terms of a statute and has a mandate. The only response the applicant gave me was that she could not leave St Mark’s because she wrote an interview and passed it, and she has been in the school for only two years, and the school is performing well,” submitted Nhlanhla.

Post your comment

Your name:

Your e-mail address:

Add your comments:

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Image:

Code: