Sssbc Agreement On Transfers

Article 10 of the Directive: Article 10 of the Directive sets out the procedure for transfers. In particular, section 10.2.3.4 provides that the relevant provincial or divisional commissioner or delegates must consider the application after consideration of various issues. This includes whether the transfer is in the best interests of the service and/or the employee. Article 10.2.5 of the Directive states that the transfer is not in the interests of the provision of services and/or the worker, that the transfer cannot be authorized and that the necessary notification must be filed in writing, in which the reasons for the decision are briefly stated. I have already indicated that, with respect to SAPS, the transfer cannot be authorized in light of the interests of the SAPS. In section 10.2.3, the provincial or departmental commissioner is required to take into account various factors when deciding to authorize a transfer. At 10.2.3.4, it is appropriate to check whether the transfer is being made “in the interest of the service and/or the worker.” In accordance with point 10.2.5, the transfer “should not be authorized” if the Commissioner (of SAPS) believes that this is not in the interest of the service and/or the worker. On behalf of THE SAPS, it was argued that the directive indicated that there was no need to balance the interests of the worker with the SAPS. If point 10.2.5 indicates that the transfer is not in the interests of the SAPS or the worker; The transfer cannot be allowed. Accordingly, the Commissioner wrongly held that the collective agreement required a balance between the two competing interests. PRETORIA – The South African Police Service (SAPS) has entered into a 2020 collective agreement with the Security and Branch Councils (SSSBC) for the restructuring of the organization under the SSSBC 1 agreement.

It should also be noted that the original litigation, which was referred to the CBSS, was an unfair dispute over labour practices. The nature of the dispute before the SSSBC was amended to rebut the issue of the interpretation and application of the collective agreement. The Commissioner then framed the question as follows: “I must decide whether the respondent [SAPS] complied with the provisions of collective agreement 5 of 1999 when the applicant [Nel`s] transfer application was denied. In addition, I must decide what the appropriate discharge should be if it is determined that the respondent did not comply with the collective agreement in question. The Commissioner therefore had to check whether the directive was compliant or not. In addition to the fact that the Commissioner clearly felt that he could replace an employer`s decision without even verifying whether that decision was rational or not, the Commissioner also did not properly consider the explicit provisions of the policy that a transfer should be refused if it is not in the best interests of the SAPS and the worker. On the face of it, the SAPS decision was consistent with the explicit provisions of the directive, which orders the decision maker to refuse a transfer if it is not in the interests of the SAPS or the worker. The dispute, which was referred to the SSSBC, concerns the interpretation and application of a collective agreement with respect to transfer policy and procedures (point 5 of 1999).