I will not reinvent the wheel in so far as digging the landscape of negotiations that unfolded at the time between social partners, emanating to what haunts the sector thus far in terms of the employment relationship. For all intents and purposes, Legal Notice No.61 of 2005 had better conditions of employment than what the MoET ultimately coerced teachers to sign for in No.147/2009 invoking the ‘take it or leave it’ mantra. 

To level the ground, it must be brought to the fore that paragraph [c] of No.61/2005 then provided that a teacher employed on contract shall be entitled to remuneration according to the qualifications of the incumbent. This is what Legal Notice No.147/2009 revoked, replacing the paragraph with entitlement to a remuneration according to the requirements of the post in which a new entrant is employed. How lethal! How conniving! The most contemptible facet in all this is that it was negotiated oblivious of the provisions of Section 27 of the Employment Act No.5 of 1980. 

This section provides that: No contract of employment shall provide for any employee any less favourable condition than is required by any law. Any condition in a contract of employment which does not conform with this Act or any other H THE SNAT ANGLE ON SUNDAY Mcolisi Motsa, SNAT EDITOR 2 2 DECEMBER 06, 2020 law shall be null and void and the contract shall be interpreted as if for that condition there were substituted the appropriate condition required by law. It is appropriate, for the sake of widening the discourse, to get to the bottom of how malevolent the MoET can go in engaging teachers in precarious employment, much against established labour practices [globally, regionally and globally].

 On reading Legal Notice No.147/2009, one is conscious that teachers were given a raw deal in signing on the dotted lines those terms, back then. Let me break down what was provided for. 6A provided that a Local Teacher shall: a) be employed on contract terms not exceeding the two [2] years per contract which may be renewed for one [1] year by the Commission if his qualifications are without education. b) not be admitted into permanent and pensionable establishment during the duration of the contract save for a teacher whose qualifications have education. c) be entitled to remuneration according to the requirements of the post on which he is employed. d) be entitled to a bonus equivalent to two [2] months salary at the end of the two-year contract. e) in the event the contract is not renewed for one year, be entitled to a bonus equivalent to one month at the end of the contract. f) in the event he commits an act constituting a breach of contract or gross misconduct, forfeit all terminal benefits due. g) in the event of his death, be entitled to be paid a pro rata bonus of the bonus referred to in sub-paragraph [d]. A close read of the above, juxtaposed with what is obtaining on the ground now, 

boils the blood of any teacher. It is an open secret that the opposite of what is provided here happens in schools, as perpetrated by