SUBMISSIONTOTHEDEPARTMENTOFLABOUR’SESSENTIALSERVICESCOMMITTEE(ESC)ON

WHETHEREDUCATIONSHOULDBEDECLAREDANESSENTIALSERVICE

06July2018

SUBMITTEDBY:

EqualEducationIsivivanaCentre,2ndFloor

8MzalaStreetKhayelitsha,7784

SouthAfrica

www.equaleducation.org.zaTel:0213610127

Email:hopolang@equaleducation.org.zarone@equaleducation.org.za

TeachingisEssential,butitisnotanEssentialService!

Positionpaper:

Ananalysisofthelawrelatingtoeducationasan‘essentialservice’

IntroductionThereisarecurringdebateonwhetherteachingshouldbedeclaredanessentialserviceinSouthAfrica.In a Notice published by the Department of Labour’s Essential Services Committee (ESC) on 15 June2018,andfollowingarecent,protractedstrikebybusdriversinthepublictransportsector,governmentis once again exploring the possibility of amending its list of essential services, under the LabourRelationsAct.1TheNotice states that, “... theESC is in theprocessof conductingan investigationas towhether thefollowingservicesareessential:

1. PublicTransportServices2. Services rendered by educators and support staff in basic education including Early

ChildhoodDevelopment.”2The release of this Notice follows a five-year hiatus by the government on this issue. At its nationalconference held inMangaung during December 2013, the ANC formally noted that there is “generalagreement that education has to be protected from disruptions”. More specifically, it noted that:“Disruptionofschoolingthroughindustrialactionandservicedeliveryprotestsimpactnegativelyonthestabilityofschoolsandthequalityofeducation.”Prior to this, in February2013,erstwhileANCSecretary-General,GwedeMantashe reported, after anANClekgotla,thateducationwouldbedeclaredan“essentialservice”.Severalweekslater,inhisStateoftheNationAddresson15February2013,formerPresident,JacobZumasaid:

“By saying education is an essential service we are not taking away the Constitutionalrightsofteachersasworkers,suchastherighttostrike.”

1‘Teachersandpublictransportcouldsoonbecome“essentialservices”’18June2018.BusinessTech.Availableat:https://businesstech.co.za/news/business/252141/teachers-and-public-transport-could-soon-become-essential-services/22GovernmentGazette,15June2018.DepartmentofLabour,Notice338of2018.NoticepublishedbytheEssentialServicesCommittee(ESC)intermsofSection71readwithSection70(2)(a)oftheLabourRelationsAct,1995(ActNo.66of1995asamended).Availableat:https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/41704_gen338.pdf

However, speaking to journalistson26February2013, followingapost-Stateof theNationdebateatParliament, Minister of Basic Education Angie Motshekga did not rule out the possibility thatgovernmentmayofficiallydeclareeducationanessentialserviceinfuture.

“Wemayneedto lookatmakingeducationanessentialservice[infuture].Fornow,wemustceasehostilitiesandmakeitapriority.SoIdon'tknowwhatwillhappeninthefuture,fornowweareusingtheword'essential'toshowitiscriticalandmustbeworkedonaccordingly.”

It is Equal Education’s (EE) position that the education sector should not be declared an essentialservice.Thefocusofthisdocumentisprimarilylegalandfairlynarrow,butitmakesclearthateducationcannotlegallybedeclaredanessentialservice.Itmustbenotedthatthesubjectof‘minimumservices’presented in the case studies contained in this submission have been included as an illustration ofalternativesolutions,andisnotnecessarilytheviewsofEE.ContextEEhasalwaysrecognisedthecriticalroleteachersplayintheSouthAfricaneducationsystem.Teachersareoftenexpectedtofacilitatelearningunderextremelydifficultcircumstances,andtosupportlearnersinwaysthatextendfarbeyondcurriculumdelivery.WehaveconsistentlyputpressureontheStatetoensurethatconditionsofemploymentforteachersare just,andconducive to teachingand learning.Teachersandprincipalsmustbe fairly remunerated;theymustwork in safe and dignified environments; and theymust have access to resources such aslearner-teacher support materials, including textbooks. Where the State is failing to provide thesenecessities,measuresmustbeavailabletoteacherstoholdtheStateaccountable.Atthesametimeteacherscarryatremendousresponsibilitytowardslearners.In2013,EEemphasisedtheimportanceofaddressingteacherabsenteeismandmaintainingteacherprofessionalism.Thesamestillholdstrue.WhiletheConstitutionprotectsbothateacher’srighttostrikeandachild’srighttoabasiceducation,these tworightsaresometimes inconflict.Weneedto interrogateandaddress thecauses that leaveteachersdissatisfiedwiththeirincome,theirworkenvironment,andoftenwiththeDepartmentofBasicEducationtothedetrimentofchildren.It cannot be government’s default position that when workers - such as teachers and bus drivers -embarkonstrikesandengageincollectivebargainingprocessestoensurefairremunerationandlabourconditions,the‘solution’isthentodeclarethesesectors(educationandtransport)essentialservices.Inanycontext,sucharesponsewouldbeseenasanattemptbyanemployertoavoidengagingwiththeiremployeesaboutpressingworkplacematters.

Discussionandhardwork,bothwithinandoutsidethesector,isneededinordertoimproveacademicoutcomesinSouthAfrica.Wemuststriveforaneducationsystemthatensuresthatalllearnersinpublicschoolsreceivequalityeducation,andthatteachersasthefacilitatorsofthisprocess,aretreatedwithfairness, dignity and respect. Declaring basic education an “essential service” is not a viable way ofachievingwhatweenvision.

Whatisthesignificanceofdeclaringasectoran“essentialservice”?An essential service refers, in law, to an economic activity in regard to which it is permissible for agovernment to prohibit strikes totally. Section 65 of the Labour Relations Act (LRA) states that: “Nopersonmaytakepartinastrikeorlock-outorinanyconductincontemplationorfurtheranceofastrikeora lock-out if - ...thatpersonisengagedinanessentialservice...”Section213oftheLRAdefinesanessentialserviceas“aservicethe interruptionofwhichendangerthe life,personalsafetyorhealthofthewholeoranypartofthepopulation.”Itisthereforeveryimportanttoknowwhichservicesmaybedeclared essential, andwhichmay not. The remainder of this submission discusses essential serviceswithreferencetoSouthAfricanandinternationallaw.

TheSouthAfricanConstitution

Section 18 of South Africa’s Constitution proclaims that everyone has the right to freedom ofassociation.Section23(2)(c)oftheConstitutionstatesthateveryworkerhastherighttostrike.Section36(a)oftheConstitutionsaysthatanyoftherightsintheBillofRights–whichincludetherightsprovidedforinsection18and23–canonlybelimitedinawaythatis“reasonableandjustifiableinanopenanddemocraticsocietybasedonhumandignity,equalityandfreedom”.Suchalimitationmusttakeintoaccount:“(a)thenatureoftheright;(b)theimportanceofthepurposeofthelimitation;(c)thenatureandextentofthelimitation;(d)therelationbetweenthelimitationanditspurpose;and(e)lessrestrictivemeanstoachievethepurpose.”Asdiscussedinfullerdetailbelow,therighttostrikebearssignificantprominenceandenjoysprotectionin South Africa due to our social and political history. The Constitutional Court has repeatedlyemphasisedtherighttostrikeasacomponentofasuccessfulbargainingsystem.Therighttostrike isalso described as leveraging the power imbalance against employers who exercise power againstworkersthroughvariousmeanssuchasdismissal,theemploymentofalternativeorreplacementlabour,andlock-outs.

Itisclearthatwithouttherighttostrike,employeeswouldbedeprivedofaverypowerfulweapon.Theywould be unable to influence the employer to listen and address their workplace grievances bywithholdingtheirlabour.InSouthAfricanPoliceService(SAPS)vPoliceandPrisonsCivilRightsUnionandAnother[2011]ZACC21,theConstitutionalCourtsaidthatwhendecidingwhetheraprofessionisanessentialservicearestrictive(narrow)interpretationofessentialservicemust,ifpossible,befollowed.Althoughthiscasedealtwithmembers of the SAPS, the Court found that evenwhere a particularworkforce has been labelled an“essentialservice”, itdoesnotmeanthatallmembers, irrespectiveoftheirpositionandappointment,areprohibitedfromstriking.TheCourtwentontoexplainthatif legislationdefines“essentialservice”toowidely and includes a host of professions, thiswould impermissibly limit the right to strike. ThisjudgmentsuggeststhatevendesignatedprofessionssuchastheSAPS,whichperformanundoubtedlycriticalservice,muststillbeaffordedsufficientmeansofexercisingtheirsection23rights.

TherighttostrikeinSouthAfricaandessentialservices

TheConstitutional Court inNUMSA vBaderBop (Pty) Ltd andOthers [1996] ZACC26 stated that therighttostrikeisanimportantpartofasuccessfulcollectivebargainingsystem.Ininterpretingtherightsin section 23, the importance of those rights in promoting a fair working environment must beunderstood.TheLabourRelationsAct(LRA)wasenactedtogiveeffecttotheconstitutionallabourrightscontainedinteraliainsection23oftheConstitution.Section1oftheActprovidesthat:“thepurposeofthisActisto advance economic development, social justice, labour peace and the democratisation of theworkplaceby fulfilling theprimaryobjectsof thisAct,whichare (a) togiveeffect toandregulate thefundamentalrightsconferredbysection27oftheConstitution;(b)togiveeffecttoobligationsincurredbytheRepublicasamemberstateoftheInternationalLabourOrganisation.”Theseprinciplesarerelevantinconsideringthevalidityofsubstantiveandprocedurallimitationsontherighttostrike.Procedurallimitationsarethenotificationandconciliationrequirementsthatmustoccurbeforeastrikeisdeclared.Theserequirementsshouldsurviveconstitutionalscrutinyastheyareinlinewiththenotionofstrikeactionasaweaponoflastresort.Thenoticeperiodisshortenoughsoasnottounderminetheeffectivenessoftheaction,whileallowingtheemployertimetoreconsideritspositionortomakeprovisionfortheaction.Asubstantivelimitationrelatestotheprohibitionofstrikesincertaininstances.3Declaringaserviceessentialisasubstantivelimitation.Whatisessentialandwhatisnot?Section 213 of the LRA explicitly defines an essential service. The definitionmirrors the internationalunderstandingofessentialservices.ThedefinitioncontainedintheLRAisthatanessentialserviceis:

3DuToitetal,LabourRelationsLaw:AcomprehensiveGuide(2015),LexisNexis341.

“(a)a service the interruptionofwhichendangers the life,personal safetyorhealthof

thewholeoranypartofthepopulation;(b)theparliamentaryservice;and(c)theSouthAfricanPoliceService.”

What constitutes an essential servicewas considered inSAPS v POPCRUandAnother. In thismatter,SAPSandtwotradeunionsrepresentingitsmembersengagedinprotractedandultimatelyunsuccessfulwagenegotiations.AstrikeresultedandsomeoftheparticipantsweremembersofSAPSemployedintermsoftheSAPSAct,whileotherswereemployedintermsofthePublicServiceAct.TheSAPSlodgedanapplicationforastrike interdict.SAPStookawideinterpretationofthetermessentialservicesandarguedthatbothofficersengagedintermsoftheSAPSActandthoseemployedintermsofthePublicServiceActwereprohibitedfromstrikingastheydischargeessentialservices.TheConstitutionalCourtfollowedanarrowinterpretationandheldthatnotallemployeesoftheSAPSareengagedinessentialservices, only ‘personnel’ employed in the SAPSwho have been designated asmembers in terms ofsection29oftheSAPSActarecoveredbytheessentialservicesstrikeprohibition.TheCourtheldthatinordertoascertainthemeaningofessentialservice,regardmustbehadtothepurposeofthelegislationandthecontextinwhichthephraseappears.AnimportantpurposeoftheLRAistogiveeffecttherighttostrikeentrenchedinsection23(2)(c)oftheConstitution.Theinterpretativeprocessmustgiveeffectto this purpose within the other purposes of the LRA. The questionmust thus not be considered inisolation,butinthecontextoftheotherprovisionsintheLRAandtheSAPSAct.Based on the above, the South African Constitution would not likely allow for teacher strikes to beoutlawed.Theconsiderations–withreferencetosection36oftheConstitution–areasfollows:

(a)thenatureoftheright:AstrikeisthemostpowerfulweaponoforganisedworkersandthuscannotbelightlyrestrictedparticularlyinlightofthehistoryofcollectivelabourinSouthAfricaaswellasthepowerimbalanceinherentinanemployee-employerrelationship.

(b) the importance of the purpose of the limitation: The purpose of the limitation is topreventteachersfromstriking.Thislimitationgoesagainsttheinternationallyaccepteddefinitionofan“essentialservice”whichisalsoreiteratedintheLRA;

(c) thenatureandextentofthe limitation: Ifeducation isdeclaredan“essentialservice”there could be a total limitation of the right to strike. This would be a drastic andinvasivelimitationoftherighttostrike.

(d) the relation between the limitation and its purpose: The limitation’s purpose isostensibly to safeguard learners’ right to a basic education. This is an importantpurpose.Section29oftheConstitutionguaranteestherighttoabasiceducationandsection28providesthat“Achild’sbestinterestsareofparamountimportanceineverymatter concerning the child”. Notwithstanding the importance of the purpose, the“relationbetweenthelimitationanditspurpose”involvesaninquiryintotheempirical

relationship, or lack thereof, between curtailing the right to strike and improvededucation outcomes. It is not clear that declaring education an essential serviceeffectivelyaddressesprevailingproblemsineducationandpromotestherighttobasiceducation.

(e) less restrictive means to achieve the purpose: Less invasive andmore constitutionalmeasures are available to achieve the same outcome. Measures such as socialdialogue,negotiations, improvedconditionsofserviceforteachers,andvariousotherforms of imposing accountability on teachers all constitute alternative means toachievethepurposeofensuringthatchildren’srighttoeducationismet.

Furtherconsiderationsagainstdeclaringeducationasanessentialservice

a)Declaringeducationanessentialservicedoesnotsolvethefundamentalandprevailinginstitutionalandstructuralproblemsineducation.Itdoesnotamongstothersaddresstheissuesofpoorinfrastructure,lackofresourcesandover-crowdinginschools.

b) Declaringeducationanessential serviceundermines the legitimacyof thegrievances

that educators attempt to raise through the right to strike such as poor workingconditions,lackofteachingresourcesandlowpay.

c) The ostensible aim of declaring education an essential service is to address teacher

absenteeism.Theproposedmethodofdeclaringteachinganessentialserviceisdrasticin nature and seemingly does not consider less restrictive alternatives which couldsuccessfully counter educator absenteeism without infringing on the constitutionalrightofteacherstostrike.

d) In the event that educators do strike, despite education being declared an essential

service–thestate,astheemployer, ispermittedtodismisstheeducators.Themassdismissalofeducatorswillhavenegativeconsequenceson theeducationofchildrenand their best interests. An example of this is where 3 000 public servants weredismissed in Botswana after they continued a strike despite being designated anessentialservice.

e)Declaringeducationanessentialservicewillnotneutralisethethreatofprotestaction

byeducators.DespitebeingdeclaredessentialservicesinMay2007,membersofthepublicsectorincludingpoliceofficers,nursesanddoctorsparticipatedinstrikeaction.4Again, in 2009, doctors participated in a strike which resulted in 26 doctors beingdismissed.5 Inboth instances, theemployersobtained interdictsand issueddismissal

4“PublicSectorStrikeInevitable.”7May2007,IndependentOnline.Availableat:https://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/public-sector-strike-inevitable-3518785“MantotoBlameforStrike.”27April2007,IndependentOnline.Availableat:https://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/manto-to-blame-for-strike-441500

threatstonoavail.Theexamplescitedabovesuggestthattheeffectivenessoftheseremediesisquestionable.

f) Declaringeducationanessentialserviceoverlooksthe fact thateducators,much like

theworkersdiscussedabove,strikeasameasureoflastresortandareoftendrivenbydesperation.Theywillinalllikelihoodrisktheexposuretosanctionsintheeventthatitmayyieldimprovements.

g) Declaring education an essential service overlooks the fact that numerous reasons

exist for the high levels of teacher absenteeism including ill health, official schoolduties, training and workshops and government duties. These issues will remainunaddresseddespitethedesignationasanessentialservice.

Internationallawobligations

SouthAfricaisapartytoseveralinternationalandregionallawagreementsthatdealwithlabourissues.TheseincludetheAfricanCharteronHumanandPeoples’Rights(ACHPR),theAfricanYouthCharter,theInternationalCovenantonEconomic,SocialandCulturalRights(ICESCR),andtheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,whicharealllegallybindinghumanrightsagreements.Althoughdraftedingeneral terms, these instruments recognise various rights in relation to labour. Conversely theInternational Labour Organisation (ILO), is a specialised agency of the United Nations that providesparticularlydetailedandpreciseguidelineswhichpromotelabourrights.

TheILOConventionandtheinternationallawinstrumentsdiscussedabovearebindinginSouthAfrica.ThisisbecausetheSouthAfricanConstitutionstatesthat“wheninterpretinganylegislation,everycourtmust prefer any reasonable interpretation of the legislation that is consistent with international lawoveranyalternativeinterpretationthatisinconsistentwithinternationallaw.”6

South Africa is again amember of the ILO, after having been excluded frommembership during theapartheid-era.

Many decisions of the Freedom of Association Committee of the Governing Body of the ILO (“theCommittee”)repeatedlyconfirmthateducationcannotbeconsideredanessentialservicewhateverthecircumstances. The Committee’s decisions, as discussed in detail below, make it clear that declaringeducation an essential service – and thus outlawing strikes by teachers – is neither “reasonable” nor“justifiable”;criteriawhichmustbemettolimitanyrightintheSouthAfricanConstitution,ofwhichtherighttostrikeisone.7

These decisions are particularly pertinent to South Africa given that South Africa ratified both theConvention98on theRight toOrganiseandCollectiveBargaining, andConvention87onFreedomof 6Section233oftheConstitution.7CaseNo2803(Canada)

AssociationandProtectionof theRight toOrganiseon19February1996.TheseConventionsconfirm,amongothers,therightsofworkerstoorganiseintotradeunions,withtherighttostrikeasan“intrinsiccorollary” (ILO, 2006: 523). Furthermore, the decisions of the Committee are applicable even tocountriesthathavenotratified.Thesearediscussedinsomedetailbelow.

TherighttostrikeandessentialservicesunderinternationallawIn1966,attheSpecialIntergovernmentalConferenceontheStatusofTeachers,heldinParis,theUnitedNationsEducational,ScientificandCulturalOrganisation(UNESCO)adoptedaresolution,whichincludedthefollowingstatement:

“Appropriatemachineryshouldbesetuptodealwiththesettlementofdisputesbetweentheteachersandtheiremployersarisingoutoftermsandconditionsofemployment.Ifthemeans and procedures established for these purposes should be exhausted or if thereshouldbeabreakdowninnegotiationsbetweentheparties,teachers'organizationsshouldhavetherighttotakesuchotherstepsasarenormallyopentootherorganizations inthedefenceoftheirlegitimateinterests.”8

Disputesoverwhethereducationcanbedeclaredanessentialservicehaveariseninmanycountriesandhave been adjudicated by the Committee referred to above. A Digest published in 2006 – the fiftheditionof thepublicationconcerned–setsout theprinciplesusedbytheCommittee inarrivingat itsdecisions.9In the publication entitled ILOPrinciples Concerning theRight to Strike, Gernigon,Odero andGuido10statethattheCommitteehasrecognisedtherighttostriketobeoneoftheprincipalmeansbywhichworkersandtheirassociationsmaylegitimatelypromoteanddefendtheireconomicandsocialinterestsandnotsimplyasocialact.

8UNESCO,Understandingandusing the ILO/UNESCORecommendationconcerning the statusof teachers (1966Recommendation) and the UNESCO Recommendation concerning the Status of Higher Education TeachingPersonnel(1997),page34.9 The Digest provides references to the cases concerned. The ILO web-site provides links to reports of theCommitteeoneachofthecases.Thereportsdetailtheargumentsmadebytheapplicant(generallytheunion)andtherespondent(generallythegovernment),andthecommittee’sreflections,decisionsandrecommendations.TheCommitteewas established in 1951by theGoverningBodyof the ILO. It is a tripartite body composedof ninemembersandninedeputies.These18peoplearedrawnequallyfromthegovernment,workers’andemployers’groupsoftheGoverningBody,withanindependentchairperson.Thecommitteecannot,therefore,beconsideredas biased in favour of, or against, any of the social partners. Governments and organisations or workers oremployerscansubmitcomplaintstotheCommitteealleginggovernmentviolationsoftradeunionrightsregardlessof whether they are members of the ILO and whether they have ratified the Conventions on freedom ofassociation and collective bargaining. The Committee meets three times a year and examines complaintssubmittedandmakesrecommendationstotheGoverningBody.10Gernigonetal,ILOPrinciplesconcerningthecollectivebargaining,InternationalLabourReview,Vol139(2000),No.1

ThefollowingprinciplesoftherighttostrikehavebeendistilledfromthedecisionsoftheCommittee:

a) it is a rightwhichworkers and their organisations (trade unions, federations andconfederations)areentitledtoenjoy;

b) thenumberofcategoriesofworkerswhomaybedeprivedofthisright,aswellasthelegalrestrictionsonitsexercise,whichshouldnotbeexcessive;and

c) the right is inextricably linked to the objective of promoting and defending theeconomicandsocialinterestsofworkers

TheconceptofessentialserviceininternationallawIn1983,theCommitteeofExpertsdefinedessentialservicesasthose“theinterruptionofwhichwouldendangerthelife,personalsafetyorhealthofthewholeorpartofthepopulation”.11ThisdefinitionwasadoptedbytheCommitteeshortlyafterwards.Althoughwhatconstitutesessentialservices“dependstoalargeextentontheparticularcircumstancesprevailinginacountry”,12theCommitteehasgivenitsopinionontheessentialornon-essentialnatureofaseriesofspecificservices.Forexample,hospitalsector;electricityservices;watersupplyservices;public or private prison services and air traffic control agents are considered to be essential serviceswheretherighttostrikemaybesubjecttomajorrestrictionsorevenprohibitions(Digestatpara585).Conversely the education sector, transport generally, agriculture, and even airline pilots, despite theimportantrolethattheseservicesfulfilarenotconsideredessentialservices(Digestatpara587).ThefollowingwasstatedbytheCommitteeaboutteachersinparticular:

a) ArgumentsthatcivilservantsdonottraditionallyenjoytherighttostrikebecausetheStateastheiremployerhasagreaterobligationofprotectiontowardsthemhavenotpersuadedtheCommitteetochangeitspositionontherighttostrikeofteachers;

b) The possible long-term consequences of strikes in the teaching sector do not justify

theirprohibition;andc) IntheCommittee’sopinion, teachersdonotcarryouttasksspecific toofficials inthe

State administration; this type of activity is also carried out in the private sector. Inthesecircumstances,itisimportantthatteacherswithcivilservantstatusshouldenjoytheguaranteesprovidedforunderConventionNo.98(Digestatparas235-237).

11ReportoftheCommitteeofExpertsontheApplicationofConventionsandRecommendations.ReportIII(Part4B),InternationalLabourConference,69thSession,1983,Geneva.12Graveletal,TheCommitteeonFreedomofAssociation:Itsimpactover50years,page44.

The section of the Digest (para 541) that discusses the right to strike states that the Committee hasrepeatedly emphasised that “theprohibitionof strikes could only be acceptable in the case of publicservants exercising authority in the name of the State [such as justice or police] or of workers inessentialservicesinthestrictsenseoftheterm,therefore,serviceswhoseinterruptioncouldendangerthelife,personalsafetyorhealthofthewholeorpartofthepopulation”(541,581).It is thisdefinitionthattheCommitteerepeatedlyreferstoasessentialservices“inthestrictsenseoftheterm”.13TheDigestacknowledgesthatwhatconstitutessuchathreatmaydifferacrosscountriesandthat, forexample,anon-essentialservicemaybecomeessentialifastrikelastsalongtime(582).However,themeaningofessentialservicesmight“loseitsmeaning”ifitwasappliedtoservicesthatdidnotendangerlife, personal safety or health of the population (583). Further, a later paragraph refers explicitly toeducationinstatingthatthe“possiblelong-termconsequencesofstrikesintheteachingsectordonotjustifytheirprohibition”(590). Incontrast,forexample,whilerefusecollectionwouldnotnormallybeconsidered an essential service, if such a strike is prolonged, it might become essential as it wouldendangerlife,personalsafetyandhealth(591).Paragraph 585 of the Digest contains a useful list of the types of services that could be consideredessential.Thislistdoesnotincludeeducationbutdoesinclude“theprovisionoffoodtopupilsofschoolageandthecleaningofschools”(585).Theinclusionofthelatterillustratestheneedfortheretobeacleardangertohealth.Paragraph587listsservicesthathavebeenconsideredincasescomingbeforetheCommitteeandthatdonotconstitute“essentialservices”inthestrictsenseoftheterm.Inthislist,theeducationsectorhasreferences tomorecases thananyothersector.Thisplethoraofcases leavesnoroomfordoubt thateducation cannot be considered an essential service.While paragraph 588 cites a case in which theCommittee found that the right to strike of principals and deputy principals may be restricted, thisexceptionhighlights,thatforordinaryteachers,therighttostrikecannotbeprohibited.MinimumservicesThe Digest discusses cases in which, while the operation does not constitute an essential service, aminimumoperationalservicemightberequired.Inthesecases,strikesarenotoutlawedforallworkers,butthereisinsteadarequirementthatalimitednumberofspecifiedtypesofworkersareavailabletodoworkdeemednecessary.Thefirstsuchpossibilityrelatestoessentialservices inthestrictsenseofthe term. The secondpossibility is non-essential serviceswhere theextent anddurationof the strike“mightbesuchas to result inanacutenationalcrisisendangering thenormal livingconditionsof thepopulation”.Thethirdrelatesto“publicservicesoffundamentalimportance”(606).

13TheDigestatpara994.

The Digest emphasises that where minimal operational services are required, this should not entail“calling into question the right to strike of the large majority of workers” (607). Further, workerorganisationsmustparticipate,togetherwithemployersandpublicauthorities,indefiningtheminimumservice. Paragraph 625 explicitly names education as a sector where minimum services could beestablished“infullconsultationwiththesocialpartners”whereastrikehascontinuedforalongtime.IllustrativecasesTheparagraphsabovesumuptheCommittee’s findingsoverthedecades.ThecasespresentedbelowillustrateinstanceswhichresultedintheCommitteeadoptingthesepositions.Thecasesdonotincludeallthosewhichrelatetoessentialservicesorminimumservices ineducation.However,thefindingsinothercasesrepeatsimilarargumentsastowhyeducationisnotandshouldnotbeanessentialservice.It should also be considered that unlike some of the countries referenced below, South Africa has asupreme Constitutionwhich guarantees the right to strike. The decisions of the Committee serve tobuttressSouthAfricanjurisprudenceontheissue.CaseNo2803(Canada)-Complaintdate:16-JUN-10,ReportNo360,June2011Inthiscase,theCanadianUnionofPublicEmployees(CUPE)complainedthattheOntariogovernmenthad passed a “back-to-work” law to end a legal strike of one of its constituent locally-based unionswhich represented graduate, research and teaching assistants at York University in Toronto. Thelegislationimposedcompulsoryandbindingarbitration.The dispute was over graduate funding, job security for contract workers, health benefits, and childcare.Aftermanymonthsofunsuccessfulnegotiation,theunionhadheldastrikevote in linewiththerelevant legislation, and a largemajority ofmembers voted to strike. The unionwent on strike on 6November 2008 and the University responded by cancelling all classes, affecting more than 50 000students. Some negotiations and mediation followed, but the union and its members remaineddissatisfiedwiththegovernment’soffer.InlateJanuary2009thePremierofOntarioannouncedthatthegovernmentwouldpasslegislationtoendthestrike.AnActpassedon29January2009orderedtheendof the 85-day strike. On 7 April 2009 the union and government signed an agreement based on thearbitrator’srecommendation.In their complaint,CUPEargued thatalthough theirmemberswere“essential to theoperationof theuniversity,theywerenotan“essentialservice”.Government,incontrast,arguedthat“anextensionorloss of an academic year has significant personal, educational, social and financial implications forstudentsandtheirfamilies,aswellasseriousorganisationalandeconomicimpactontheuniversityandthebroaderpublic.”14Thelaw,governmentargued,thusservedthepublicinterest.

14CaseNo2803atpara336

The Committee, in its decision, notes – and “deeply deplores” – that thiswas the fourth time in tenyearsthat ithadbeenaskedtoconsiderstrike-ending legislation inrelationtotheeducationsector inCanada.Itreiteratedthattherighttostrike“isoneofthelegitimateandessentialmeansthroughwhichworkers and their organisationsmay defend their economic and social interests”.15 Further, while insome exceptional cases this right might be limited, “the education sector does not fall within theseexceptions”.TheCommitteeacknowledgedthat“unfortunateconsequencesmayflowfromastrikeinanon-essentialservice”butsaidthatthesedidnotjustifylimitingtherighttostrike.CaseNo2654(Canada)-Complaintdate:12-JUN-08,ReportNo365,March2010AnearlierCanadiancasewasnotspecifictoeducationemployees,butinsteadrelatedtopublicservantsmore generally. The complaint was laid by the National Union of Public and General Employees(NUPGE), Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) and Saskatchewan Federation of Labour (SFL), with thesupport of Public Services International (PSI). The worker organisations complained about the PublicServiceEssentialServicesandtheTradeUnionAct,asamended,whichcame intoeffect inMay2008.They said that these laws effectively prohibited the majority of public employees from striking bydefiningwhat constitutes essential services so broadly that virtually all public employees could be sodefined.Asaresultofthis legislation,collectivebargaininghadmoreorlessceasedandmostworkershadnotbeencoveredbycollectiveagreementssince2008.Theorganisationsalsocomplainedaboutgovernment’sfailuretoconsultwiththembeforepassingthelaws. In its response,governmentacknowledged that ithadnotconsultedbeforepassing the lawbutsaid that it had engaged in “extensive” consultation subsequently, resulting in five proposedamendmentstooneofthelaws.TheCommitteenotedthat theAct’sdefinitionof“essential services”seemedtobeonewherestrikeswerenotcompletelyprohibitedbutwheretherehadtobeminimumservices,thetermsofwhichmustbe negotiated by the parties. However, the Committee noted that some of the services listed in thePublicServiceEssentialServicesActwouldnotqualifyasserviceswhichcanunilaterallybedeclaredassoessentialthatminimumservicesmustbemaintained.ItnotedfurtherthatwhilethisActprovidedfornegotiationwithworkerorganisationsoverminimumservices,thisnegotiationdidnotextendtowhichservices were to be classified as essential, only to the number of workers required for minimumservices.CaseNo2657(Colombia)-Complaintdate:22-MAY-08.ReportNo355,November2009ThecomplaintoftheColombianTeachers’Federation(FECODE),laidin2008,wasthatgovernmenthadmadedeductionsfromsalariesfordaysnotworkedduringastrike.Thestrikelastedfrom15Mayto21June,andthemainpurposewastoexpressworkers’rejectionofGovernment’sneoliberalpoliciesandrelatedmeasures, includingprivatisationofpubliceducationand labour flexibility.The federationwas

15CaseNo2803atpara340.

also aggrieved that government had not involved trade unions in the national policy decision-makingprocess.The government did not declare the strike illegal but did instruct local authorities responsible foreducation not to pay workers for the days that they did not work and to institute disciplinaryproceedingsagainstthem.Thefederationarguedthatthisforcedtheteacherstoreturntowork.Oncethe strike had ended, FECODE proposed that the school calendar be adjusted so that the curriculumcould be completed. This was done, but the authorities nevertheless deducted pay for the daysoriginallynotwork.In its response to the complaint, the Government of Colombia argued that the strike constituted aviolation of “children’s fundamental right to education” which was entrenched in article 44 of thePoliticalConstitution.Itnotedthattherightsofchildren“takeprecedenceovertherightsofothers”andthat this principle was in line with international treaties. The Government argued further that thedemandsofthestrikewerepoliticalinnature,andthusnotcoveredbytherighttostrike.Further,whileworkershave the right to strike, it is alsouniversally accepted that employers arenotobliged topayworkersfordaysnotworked.TheCommittee’scommentsnoted,asinothercases,thateducationwasnotanessentialserviceinthestrict sense of the term, and thus not a service in which the right to strike may be prohibited. TheCommittee confirmed that deductions for days of strike do not contravene the right to freedom ofassociation.However,itnotedthatinthiscasetheworkershadmadeupthedayslost.CaseNo2784(Argentina)-Complaintdate:18-MAY-10.ReportNo360,June2011In this case from Argentina, the Confederation of Education Workers of Argentina (CTERA) andEducationalWorkers’AssociationofNeuquén(ATEN)complainedaboutDecreeNo.735/10ofMay2010in which the executive authority of Neuquén province designated education as an essential publicservice and established a systemofminimum services. Theminimum staffing levels aimed to ensurethatalleducationalestablishmentscouldopen,thatalllearnerscouldremainatschoolthroughouttheschoolday,andthatatleast50percentofclassesatalllevelscouldtakeplaceonanygivenschoolday.Forspecialschools,boardingschools,schoolswithresidentialfacilitiesandschoolsthatprovidemeals,theminimumstaffinglevelsweretoensurethat100percentofallclassesandactivitiescouldtakeplaceonanygivenschoolday.Theworkerorganisationsnoted that section24ofActNo.25877definedessential servicesas “beinghealthandhospitalservices, theproductionanddistributionofdrinkingwater,electricityandgasandairtrafficcontrol”.Otheractivitiescouldonly,“onanexceptionalbasis”bedesignatedasessentialbyanindependentcommission.Theorganisationsarguedthat,insteadofanessentialservice,educationwasa“socialrightthatshouldbeguaranteedbytheState”.

TheCommitteenotedthatActNo2587providedthatanindependentcommissioncouldrulethatanyactivitywasessentialifthedurationandgeographicalextentofthestrikeendangeredlifeorsafety,orwhen the strike affected a “a public service of vital importance”. The information provided by theprovincialauthoritydidnotprovethattheseconditionsweremet.However,theCommittee’sresponsedid acknowledge thatearlierdecisions confirmed that theprovisionof food to learnersof school ageandthecleaningofschoolscouldbeconsideredessentialservicesinthestrictsenseoftheterm.The Committee noted further that this was not the first time it had been asked to consider a caserelating to allegations that government was restricting the right to strike of education workers inNeuquénprovince.Inapreviouscaseithadrecommendedthatminimumservicesbeestablishedintheeducationsector,infullconsultationwiththesocialpartners,whereastrikewasprolonged.However,initsresponsethegovernmenthadnotgivenanyindicationthatithadconsultedwiththesocialpartners.The Committee therefore requested “with insistence” that in future where long strikes occurred ineducation, that organisations of workers should participate in defining the minimum service. It alsoaskedthegovernmenttoconfirmthattheoffendingdecreewasnolongerinforce.CaseNo2696(Bulgaria)-Complaintdate:15-FEB-09:ReportNo356,March2010InthiscaseEducationInternational(EI),theTradeUnionofBulgarianTeachers(SEB)andTradeUnionofTeachers Podkrepa complained about litigation following a 42-day strike. The strike took place fromSeptembertoOctober2007andinvolvedmorethan110000teachersandothereducationalworkers,equivalentto80percentofpubliceducationworkers.Theworkerswentonstrikeaftertheirmanyotherattemptstowinhighersalarieshadfailed.Theorganisationsnoted that in2004 teachershaddeclined toaccept the statusofpublic servants intermsofthelawonpublicservants.Theyhaddoneso,despitethebenefitsthatthestatuswouldhavebrought,becausethatstatuswouldhavedeniedthemtherighttostrike.ThestrikewasfullyinlinewithBulgarian legislation. However, more than four months after the strike ended, an association of sixparents lodged a complaint against two teachers’ unionswith the Commission for Protection againstDiscrimination inBulgariasaying that thestrikehaddiscriminatedagainst learners inpubliceducationwhen comparedwith those in private education. The SupremeAdministrative Court then, on appeal,ruledthattherightsofchildreninpublicschoolshadbeenviolated.TheCourtruledfurtherthat,giventhe importanceofpubliceducation, thereshouldbeaminimumservice inschools,kindergartensandnurseries. The worker organisations argued that the “the notion of essential services and minimumservice must not have the purpose or effect of weakening the most powerful means of pressureavailabletoworkers.”Initsresponse,thegovernmentgavetheassurancethatanyamendmentstotheSettlementofCollectiveLabourDisputesActtoprovideforaminimumserviceinpubliceducationwouldbediscussedwiththesocialpartners.Indiscussing this case, theCommitteeexpressed its concern that theCommissionhad interfered ina“long-establishedright”ofteachersonthebasisoftheimplieddiscriminationbetweenlearnersservedby the private and public sectors. The Committee noted that the discrimination about which the

Commissionwas concerneddidnot arisebecausepublic sector teachershad the right to strikewhileprivatesectorteachersdidnot,asprivateteachersalsohadthisright.Itnotedfurtherthatadecisionbyan independent body such as the Commission could not override government’s internationalobligations.TheCommitteestatedthateducationisnotanessentialserviceinthestrictsenseoftheterm.CaseNo2569(Korea,Republicof)-Complaintdate:20-MAY-07.ReportNo351,November2008This is one of several Korean complaints and was laid by Education International (EI) and KoreanTeachersandEducationWorkers'Union (KTU).Eachof thecomplaints includedanumberofdifferentsub-complaints,includingsomerelatingtodetentionandotherformsofharshtreatmentofindividuals.Thiscomplaint,likeothers,includeddenialoftherighttostrike.ThecomplaintisanexampleofonelaidinrespectofacountrywhichhadnotratifiedtheFreedomofAssociationandProtectionoftheRighttoOrganiseConvention,1948(No.87)ortheRighttoOrganiseandCollectiveBargainingConvention,1949(No.98).The organisations complained that while the Teacher Union Act guaranteed the right to organise, itforbadestrikes.Thegovernmentrespondedthatmanyteachershadthesamestatusaspublicofficials(thus“exercisingtheauthorityofthestate”),andteachersinprivateschoolsweresubjecttothesamelawsand regulations as those inpublic schools. Thus “teachershave theduty toperform their job ingoodfaithandareprohibitedfromleavingtheirworkplacewithoutpermissionandengaginginpoliticalmovement.”16Governmentarguedthatrestrictionontherighttocollectiveaction,includingstrikes,wasjustified“inlightofthenatureofteachers’workandexpectationsabouttheirroleinsociety”andthatinterruptionsineducation“couldhaveanenormousimpactonthelivesofthegeneralpublicaswellastheeducationofthestudents”.17Initsdiscussion,theCommitteenotedthatithadalreadytwicepreviouslydealtwithrestrictionsonthefreedomofactionofteachersintheRepublicofKorea.Inpreviousdecisionsithadstatedthateducationwasnot anessential service,neitherdid itmeet thedefinitionof theexercising thepowersofpublicauthority”.Itwasonlyschoolprincipalsanddeputyprincipalswhocouldbeconsideredtoexercisesuchauthorityandwhoserighttostrikecouldthereforebelimited.TheCommitteethereforerequestedthegovernmenttoamendthelegislationtoprovideteachersinthepublicandprivatesectorswiththerighttostrike.CaseNo2305(Canada)-Complaintdate:09-OCT-03.ReportNo355,November2004InthecaseEducationInternational(EI),actingonbehalfoftheCanadianTeachers'Federation(CTF),theOntario Teachers' Federation (OTF) and the Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association (OECTA),

16CaseNo2569atpara615.17CaseNo2569atpara615.

complained that theGovernment ofOntario has adopted back-to-work legislation in the formof theEducationandProvincialSchoolsNegotiationsAmendmentActof2003(Bill28).Thiswasthefifthtimethatgovernmenthadpassedsuch legislation in the spaceof fiveyears,andworkerorganisationshadsubmittedsimilarcomplaintsinrespectofpreviouslegislation.Theworkerorganisationsnoted that from1975until 1997 teachers had the right to strikeunder theSchool Boards and Teachers CollectiveNegotiationsAct. Therewere only twoqualifications. The firstwas that principals and vice-principals had to remain on duty. The second was that the EducationRelationsCommissioncouldadvisethegovernmentwhenitfeltthatcontinuationofastrike(orlockout)couldmean thataffected learnerswouldnotcomplete their courses.TheCommissionhadgivensuchadviceonlyinstrikesthatlastedfor27schooldaysorlonger.From1997thegovernmentintroducedlegislationcoveringmanydifferentaspectsofeducation.Theseinclude four pieces of legislation containing back-to-work provisions. The 2003 Act, as the fifth suchpieceof legislation,provided formandatoryarbitrationand redefined the term“strike” inaway thatfurther restricted the right to strike of teachers. The new definition included any action that “mayreasonablybeexpected”to“curtail,restrict,limitorinterferewithschoolprogrammes…[or]thenormalactivitiesofa[school]boardor itsemployees.”Theamendmentswerepassedinreactiontoaspecificdispute, but applied to all 135 000 teachers in Ontario, including large numbers not involved in thespecificdispute.Initsresponse,theCommitteehighlightedthesimilaritybetweenthisandpreviouscomplaintsintermsof the parties involved, the allegations, the violations of the right to strike, and the imposition ofarbitration.Itthereforedidnotrepeatallitspreviousarguments.However,itdidagainnotethatwhile“unfortunateconsequences”mightresult fromastrike inanon-essentialservice, thesedidnot justifyrestrictingtherighttostrikeunlesstherewasdangertolife,personalsafetyorhealth.Italsoreferredtoanearlier case inwhich it hadexplicitly said that thepossible long-termconsequencesof a teachers’strike did not justify prohibiting such strikes. The Committee therefore strongly requested that thegovernmentestablishavoluntaryandeffectivedisputepreventionandresolutionmechanismandaskedtobekeptinformedofwhatgovernmenthaddonetomeetthisrequest.CaseNo.3164(Thailand)-Complaintdate:07-OCT-15-Follow-upThecomplaintbroughtbyIndustriALLUnionraisedcomplaintsofseverallegislativeshortcomingswhichincludedthedenialoftherighttostriketoworkers.Mostnotableinthisinstancewasthatbyvirtueofsection23ofthePrivateUniversityActof2013,privateschoolsanduniversityteacherswereeffectivelyexcludedfromthescopeoftheLabourRelationsActandwerepreventedfromorganizing,formingtradeunionsandbargainingcollectively.TheGovernmentresponsewasthatteacherscanexercisetheirrighttoformanassociationbutshoulddo so as prescribed by the Constitution and the Interim Constitution. The Committee reiterated thatteachers should have the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing, without

previous authorization, for the promotion and defence of their occupational interests [Digest at para235].TheCommitteeconsiders that these rightsmustbeeffectivelyensured for teachers inboth thepublic and the private sector and theGovernmentwas requested to take the necessarymeasures toensure that, in linewith thementionedprinciple, teachers can fullyenjoy, in lawand inpractice, therighttoorganize,formtradeunionsandbargaincollectively.Recentdeclarationsofeducationasan“essentialservice”inforeignjurisdictionsIn a few foreign jurisdictions governments have declared education an essential service, prohibitedteachersfromstriking,oratleastattemptedtodooneorbothofthesethings.The ILO’s Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations (CEACR)notedthatcertainCanadianprovinces, includingBritishColumbiaandManitoba,haveseen“recurrentproblemsintheexerciseoftherighttostrikebyworkersintheeducationsector”.TheLabourRelationsBoard of British Columbia ordered on 28 February 2012 that the British Columbia Public SchoolEmployers’ Association (BCPSA) and the British Columbia Teachers Federation (BCTF) work with theBoardto“designateessentialservice levels”.TheCEACRnotedthat inManitobasection110(1)of thePublic School Act prohibits teachers from engaging in strike action. It also noted reports that theGovernmentofOntariaannouncedthatitwouldintroduceaBillagainsteducationworkersandschoolboardsthatwouldblockanypossiblestrikeforuptotwoyearsandendallnegotiations,particularlyonteachers’wages.SimilarlegislationinQuebecandSaskatchewanisthesubjectoflitigation.TheCEACRexpresseditsconcernaboutthesedevelopments.These instances highlight that some countries are still attempting to declare education an essentialservice,andthat if thegovernmentofSouthAfricaweretopursuethiscourse, itwouldnotbealone.However,as the legislationandcases reviewedaboveshow, thiswouldunlikelybea lawfulcourseofaction.ConclusionTheILOhasacleardefinitionofessentialservices,beingservicesinwhichitispermissibleforstrikestobe totally prohibited. In the strict sense of the term, “essential services” refer only to services thatendangerthelife,personalsafetyorhealthofthewholeorpartofthepopulation.Itisonlyinrespectoftheseservices,andinrespectofworkerssuchaspoliceandthejudiciarywho“exerciseauthorityinthenameofthestate”18thatstrikesmaybeprohibited.FormerPresidentZuma’s statement thateducation isanessential service,but that thisdoesnot takeawaytherightofteacherstostrike,makessenseonlyifhewasusingtheterm“essentialservices”inaninformal manner. On the other hand, the Committee has repeatedly said that education is not anessentialservice,andthatordinarypublicsectorteachersdonotexerciseauthorityinthenameofthe

18TheDigestatpara962.

state.Ithasrepeatedthisstatementincountriesfromdifferentregionsoftheworld,andinrespectofawiderangeofdifferentcircumstances.Equal Education believes that education provision more broadly should not be declaredan essentialservice both for the legal and other considerations as discussed above. It is unlikely that declaringeducationanessentialservicewillpassconstitutionalmuster. This isbasedontheimportoftherightand the definition of an essential service. As a matter of law, therefore, education cannot be anessentialserviceinSouthAfricanlaw,orundertheinternationaltreatiestowhichSouthAfricaisaparty.

ReferencesAfricanNational Congress. 2012. Resolutions of theANC's 53rdNational Conference,Mangaung,December16-202012.Deacon,H.J(2014).TheBalancingActbetweentheConstitutionalRighttoStrikeandtheConstitutionalRighttoEducation.SouthAfricanJournalofEducation;34(2)DuToitetal,LabourRelationsLaw:AcomprehensiveGuide(2015)LexisNexis341.‘Education an Essential Service – ANC’ 4 February 2013. Downloaded 24 February from:http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Education-an-essential-service-ANC-20130204.(News24)‘Education is Essential but not an Essential Service’ 26 February 2013. Downloaded 28 Februaryfrom http://mg.co.za/article/2013-02-26-education-is-essential-but-not-an-essential-service. (MailandGuardian)EqualEducation.February2010.StatementonTokisoReviewandSADTU.Downloaded9February2013from:http://www.equaleducation.org.za/ee-tr-sadtu.‘Follow-uptotheconclusionsoftheCommitteeontheApplicationofStandards(InternationalLabourConference,100thSession,June2011)’FreedomofAssociationandProtectionoftheRighttoOrganiseConvention,1948FreedomofAssociationandProtectionoftheRighttoOrganiseConvention,1948(No.87)-Nigeria(Ratification:1960)GovernmentGazette,15June2018.DepartmentofLabour,Notice338of2018.NoticepublishedbytheEssential Services Committee (ESC) in terms of Section 71 read with Section 70(2)(a) of the LabourRelations Act, 1995 (Act No. 66 of 1995 as amended). Available at:https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/41704_gen338.pdfGovernmentofSouthAfrica.February2013.StateoftheNationAddress2013.Graveletal,TheCommitteeonFreedomofAssociation:Itsimpactover50yearshttp://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:13100:0::NO:13100:P13100_COMMENT_ID:3085430http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:13100:0::NO:13100:P13100_COMMENT_ID:3084126ILOPrinciplesConcerningtheRighttoStrike,Gernigon,OderoandGuido,InternationalLabourReview,Vol139(2000),No.1

InternationalLabourOrganisation.2006.FreedomofAssociation:DigestofdecisionsandprinciplesoftheFreedomofAssociationCommitteeoftheGoverningBodyoftheILO.Fifth(revised)edition.InternationalLabourOffice:Geneva.JohnMawbey,SouthAfricanMunicipalWorkersUnion,personalcommunication,9February2012.NORMLEX:FreedomofAssociationCaseshttp://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:20030:0::NO:::NUMSAvBaderBop(Pty)LtdandOthers[1996]ZACC26Observation(CEACR)-adopted2012,published102ndILCsession(2013)(No.87)-Canada(Ratification:1972)Observation(CEACR)-adopted2012,published102ndILCsession(2013)ReportoftheCommitteeofExpertsontheApplicationofConventionsandRecommendations.ReportIII(Part4B),InternationalLabourConference,69thSession,1983,Geneva.SouthAfricanPoliceService(SAPS)vPoliceandPrisonsCivilRightsUnionandAnother[2011]ZACC21.Teachersandpublictransportcouldsoonbecome“essentialservices”’18June2018.BusinessTech.Availableat:https://businesstech.co.za/news/business/252141/teachers-and-public-transport-could-soon-become-essential-services/2UnitedNationsEducational,ScientificandCulturalOrganization(UNESCO).1966.RecommendationconcerningtheStatusofTeachersadoptedbytheSpecialIntergovernmentalConferenceontheStatusofTeachers,Paris,5October1966.UNESCO,UnderstandingandusingtheILO/UNESCORecommendationconcerningthestatusofteachers(1966Recommendation)andtheUNESCORecommendationconcerningtheStatusofHigherEducationTeachingPersonnel(1997),page34.AcknowledgmentsThispositionpaperisbasedonadocumentpreparedforEqualEducationbyDebbieBudlenderin2013.IthasbeenupdatedbyAdv.OfentseMotlhasediin2018oninstructionbytheEqualEducationLawCentre.