Can TVET Teachers Join the September GES Strike? Legal Questions Emerge

Questions have emerged over whether teachers who were formerly under the Ghana Education Service (GES) but have since migrated to the Ghana TVET Service can join the nationwide strike declared by the Ghana National Association of Teachers (GNAT), the National Association of Graduate Teachers (NAGRAT) and the Pre-Tertiary Education Teachers Union of Ghana (PRETAG).

The debate has become particularly significant following the nationwide strike declared on September 25, 2026, over concerns including promotions, the 20 per cent deprived-area allowance and the GES Collective Agreement.

A guidance and counselling analysis by Seth Afum A. Dankwah of J. G. Knol Technical Institute at Adukrom-Akuapem argues that the central issue is not simply union membership but the identity of the employer against whom the industrial action was declared.

The analysis contends that the reorganisation of pre-tertiary education has created two distinct public education services — the Ghana Education Service and the Ghana TVET Service — making it necessary for future strike declarations to clearly identify the affected employer.

The Ghana TVET Service was established under the Pre-Tertiary Education Act, 2020 (Act 1049), as a corporate body responsible for managing, overseeing and implementing approved national policies and programmes relating to pre-tertiary technical and vocational education and training.

The establishment of the Service also resulted in the realignment of TVET institutions previously operating under different ministries and agencies. The Ghana TVET Service says institutions formerly associated with GES-TVED, NVTI, OIC, Social Welfare Training Centres, Youth Leadership Training Institutes, GRATIS, Technology Solution Centres, Farm Institutes and other entities were brought under the Service.

The restructuring means that technical and vocational institutions that were previously administered through GES are now managed within the Ghana TVET Service structure.

The Service’s Human Resource Management and Development Division is responsible for functions including recruitment and placement, performance management, staff development and labour-related advisory matters.

According to the analysis, several teachers who were originally employed through GES technical institutions migrated to the Ghana TVET Service.

However, some of those migrated teachers retained their memberships in unions including GNAT, NAGRAT and PRETAG and continue to pay union dues.

That situation, the analysis argues, has created confusion whenever the unions declare industrial action involving GES.

The analysis recounts an incident on Monday, September 29, 2026, when a parent in Accra reportedly called his son, who was attending a technical institute, after hearing that teachers had gone on strike.

The student reportedly told the parent that some teachers had said they were on strike, but the Principal had instructed students to remain in class because the teachers were TVET teachers rather than GES teachers.

According to the analysis, some migrated TVET teachers were similarly uncertain about whether they were expected to join the industrial action because they remained members of the unions that declared it.

The position reportedly communicated by some principals was that the strike concerned the Ghana Education Service and therefore did not apply to employees whose current employer is the Ghana TVET Service.

The analysis makes a distinction between union membership and the employer involved in an industrial dispute.

It argues that a teacher can remain a member of GNAT, NAGRAT or PRETAG after migrating from GES to the Ghana TVET Service, but that membership alone does not automatically make every industrial action declared by the union applicable to the teacher’s current employer.

The analysis therefore maintains that the September 25 strike was directed at GES and that teachers whose employment is now with the Ghana TVET Service should not automatically withdraw their services from TVET institutions.

This interpretation, however, is presented as a legal and labour-relations analysis rather than a formal determination by the National Labour Commission or a court.

The analysis relies heavily on the Labour Act, 2003 (Act 651), particularly the provisions dealing with strikes and sympathy action.

Section 168(1) provides that, subject to the requirements in Sections 159 and 160, a strike may be lawful where it is undertaken in sympathy with or in support of another group of workers engaged in an industrial dispute with their employer.

The same section, however, places restrictions on how sympathy action may be conducted.

Section 168(3) provides that the form of a sympathy strike must be agreed with the management of the sympathising workers and must not disrupt the operational activities of the enterprise whose workers are expressing sympathy.

The analysis consequently argues that migrated TVET teachers could potentially express solidarity with GES teachers, but that such solidarity would have to comply with the requirements of Act 651.

Examples suggested include wearing red armbands or issuing a statement of solidarity without abandoning teaching duties.

The analysis maintains that a complete withdrawal of services at a TVET institution could raise a different legal issue because the Ghana TVET Service is not the employer involved in the GES dispute.

Section 168(4) of Act 651 states that a worker who participates in an illegal strike may have their services terminated without notice for breach of the employment contract or may forfeit remuneration for the period of the illegal strike.

The analysis therefore cautions migrated teachers against assuming that union membership, by itself, provides protection for participating in a strike that concerns a different employer.

At the same time, Section 169 provides legal protection for employment relationships during a lawful strike or lockout, making the distinction between lawful and unlawful industrial action important.

According to the analysis, GNAT, NAGRAT and PRETAG declared the September 25 nationwide strike over issues involving GES, including promotions, the 20 per cent deprived-area allowance and the GES Collective Agreement.

It argues that the use of the phrase Nationwide Strike by Pre-Tertiary Teachers in the communication created ambiguity because the phrase “pre-tertiary teachers” can now encompass employees operating under both GES and the Ghana TVET Service.

The analysis suggests that specifying pre-tertiary teachers under GES would have made the scope of the action clearer to migrated TVET personnel.

The analysis further states that six unions have members within various TVET institutions:

• Public Services Workers’ Union (PSWU)
• Ghana National Association of Teachers (GNAT)
• National Association of Graduate Teachers (NAGRAT)
• Pre-Tertiary Education Teachers Union of Ghana (PRETAG)
• Teachers and Educational Workers’ Union (TEWU)
• Civil and Local Government Staff Association, Ghana (CLOGSAG)

It argues that the presence of these unions within TVET institutions does not change the fact that the Ghana TVET Service is the employer responsible for those institutions.

The analysis also contrasts the September GES strike with an earlier industrial dispute involving the Ghana TVET Service.

It states that the Public Services Workers’ Union declared a strike against the Ghana TVET Service on March 24, 2026.

According to the analysis, TVET staff who were members of GNAT, NAGRAT and PRETAG continued working during that action because their unions had not instructed them to participate.

The analysis says TVET management subsequently invited the unions affiliated with the Service to discussions concerning the validation of the TVET Conditions of Service.

It lists PSWU, GNAT, NAGRAT, TEWU, CLOGSAG and PRETAG among the unions involved in the TVET labour discussions.

The analysis argues that this episode demonstrates the importance of identifying the employer involved in every industrial dispute.

The analysis also points to concerns affecting migrated staff, including alleged 2024 arrears, migration downgrades, movement of points and delays relating to Conditions of Service.

It argues that these issues are separate from the concerns cited in the September GES strike.

According to the analysis, if TVET unions collectively wished to take industrial action over those TVET-specific concerns, the dispute would need to be directed at the Ghana TVET Service rather than GES.

Another issue raised is whether union officers involved in the September action should visit TVET institutions to encourage staff to join the strike.

The analysis argues against such enforcement, citing three main reasons.

First, it says TVET institutions are no longer under GES administration.

Second, it argues that enforcing a GES strike against employees of the Ghana TVET Service would involve workers whose employer is not a party to the underlying dispute.

Third, it refers to Section 171 of Act 651 on picketing.

The analysis says peaceful picketing is tied to the workplace of the workers involved in the dispute and therefore questions attempts to enforce the GES strike at TVET institutions.

It further argues that Section 168(3), which governs sympathy action, prevents such action from disrupting the operations of the sympathising enterprise.

To address the confusion, the analysis proposes that GNAT, NAGRAT and PRETAG issue a clarification to migrated members working under the Ghana TVET Service.

The proposed clarification would state that the September 25 strike concerns GES issues and advise members now employed by the Ghana TVET Service to remain at post while pursuing their TVET-specific concerns through the appropriate engagement channels.

It also proposes that any solidarity action should comply with Section 168(3) of Act 651 and should not disrupt teaching and learning within TVET institutions.

The central argument of the analysis is that the phrase “pre-tertiary teacher” can no longer automatically be treated as synonymous with “GES teacher.”

The Ghana TVET Service is now a separate statutory institution responsible for pre-tertiary technical and vocational education and training under Act 1049.

Consequently, the analysis calls on unions to clearly identify the employer targeted whenever they announce future industrial action.

It argues that a simple clarification such as a nationwide strike by pre-tertiary teachers under GES could prevent similar confusion among staff who migrated from GES to the Ghana TVET Service but retained membership in their former unions.

The issue ultimately turns on the relationship between union membership, the worker’s current employer and the legal requirements governing industrial action.

Under Act 651, sympathy strikes are recognised, but the law also places conditions on how such action can be conducted.

The analysis therefore concludes that the September dispute should not be treated as automatically extending to all teachers working within Ghana’s wider pre-tertiary education system without considering the employer and the legal basis of the industrial action.