SUBMISSION ON THE FETC AMENDMENT BILL

1. SUBMISSION ON THE FETC AMENDMENT BILL PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION AND TRAINING 31 AUGUST 2011

2. Introduction The organization would like to first commend the Minister, Dr. Blade Nzimande for the high level of commitment displayed in the quest to transform the FET sector into an excellent hub for skills development. The FETCEO appreciates the colossal strides taken by the minister to appropriately mainstream the sector and ensure that it responds adequately to the challenges of a developing country. However, while recognising that certain strides have been made in transforming our education system, certain things still remain critical in our agenda of realising our goals as a developmental state.

3. Introduction There is a need to focus our energies as a collective to policies, legislation, programmes, Acts and other Regulatory frameworks within the sector to ensure their relevance in driving the noble agenda of skills development and Training in South Africa. We support DHET in its bid to locate the public FET colleges sector within a single policy and legal framework to ensure maximum provision of training and post compulsory education.

4. Introduction The FETCEO is the recognised employer in both the ELRC-FETCBU and GPSSBC-FETCBU, however the Department still funded collective agreements, so we are the employer that does not hold the purse. Except for college paid employees We highly welcome the move by the Department to relieve us from this nightmare that we had to inherit in order to be able to concentrate and put more focus on key governance issues.

5. Introduction We welcome the move to take back the employment of staff by the Department and will also want to indicate that the current negotiated settlement in the sector created equality between employees who were employed in terms of post funded by the Department and those that we employed in college funded post. That was done with the understanding that there is currently one employer in the sector, and that is colleges and there will be no legal justification of any artificial division of employees in colleges

6. Challenges We have noted some few challenges in the Bill that we believe we must bring to the attention of the portfolio committee:

7. Challenges The bill suggests that the appointments and/or transfers of staff shall be dealt with in terms of the Public Service Act. Whilst this matter is legally correct since there is no other alternative; it however, has the following challenges:

8. Challenges It may mean that the Public Service Act needs to be amended to provide deviation that allows the Minister Of Higher Education and Training to determine Conditions of Service of staff appointed by the MHET. Otherwise, it is not clear how the Minister of Higher Education and Training shall have jurisdiction over staff appointed in terms of the PSA without the consent of the Minister of Public Service and Administration.

9. Challenges Both lecturers and support staff appointees of the minister appointed in terms of s20 2(b) (lecturers and support staff) shall provisionally have their conditions of service dealt with in the same bargaining council i.e. GPSSBC. This matter is made clear in par.9 of the transitional measures. It should be noted that this will change the current sectoral bargaining arrangements.

10. Challenges s20 4(b) allows councils to appoint staff additional to the minister’s appointees (lecturers and support staff). It is clear that the support staff component will have their conditions of service determined in the GPSSBC. However, par.10 of the transitional measures suggests that conditions of service of council employees (lecturers) appointed in terms of s20 4(b) shall be dealt with in the ELRC. This situation will create disparity in the sector in that already the bill resolve that CoS of lecturers appointed by the minister will be dealt with in the GPSSBC

11. Possible resolve 2.1.Allow the bill to go through and later the Minister of Higher Education and Training to petition the Minister of Public Service and Administration to allow for the deviation in the same way it was done for the educators in schools to the point that their conditions of service are now dealt with in terms of the EEA, in the ELRC 2.2 Or to insert a section in the bill that empowers the Minister of Higher Education and Training and possibly the FETCEO/Councils to determine the conditions of service of their appointees in the relevant respective bargaining councils: all support staff in the GPSSBC, lecturers in the ELRC and transversal issues in the PSCBC

12. Possible resolve 2.3 We would advocate for a Service Act sorely for the FETC sector where both the Department and the FETCEO are the recognised employers as we have noted that the uniqueness of the sector will always require colleges to employ staff in non-Department post. In order to attract skilled personnel in colleges we need a salary dispensation that is sorely dedicated to the sector.

13. Possible resolve The Bill reaffirm the role of college council as key governance structures in colleges and we welcome the quest to discourage “tenderpreneurism” in colleges and also to uproot corruption. We have noted and welcome the introduction of PFMA in the sector and believe that this will assist in giving the governance structure the power to hold management accountable in financial decision made rather than just approval of budget. As with HESA we also believe that the Bill should find space to locate the FETCEO in the current form or any other form in order to create space for centralised bargaining and any other advocacy role in the sector.