ELRC887-21/22GP

Case Number: ELRC887-21/22GP
Commissioner: Moraka Abel Makgaa
Date: 02 September 2022

In the matter between: -
Solidarity obo Unika Gerda van Pletzen Applicant
And
Education Department of Gauteng Respondent

ARBITRATION AWARD

DETAILS OF THE ARBITRATION AND REPRESENTATION
1 The matter was heard virtually, over a period of 6 days, commencing of 06 May 2022, continued on 02 June 2022, 20 July 2022, 22 July 2022, 01 August 2022 and concluded on 03 August 2022. The employee was present and represented by Ms Lelanie du Plessis, a union official from Solidarity whereas the respondent was represented by Mr Mogaba Tsebe, employed by the respondent as its Labour Relations Officer.
BACKGROUND TO THE DISPUTE
2 The Applicant’s dispute relates to alleged unfair dismissal for incapacity due to ill-health.
The applicant applied for a temporary incapacity leave: long period from 31 August 2020 until 15 December 2020, when schools closed for the end of the 2020 academic year. The application was assessed by Pro-Active Health Solutions (“PHS”), the appointed Health Risk Manager, in accordance with the Policy and Procedure on Incapacity and Ill-Health Retirement (to be referred to hereinafter as PILIR or the policy, which issued an assessment report dated 07 December 2020. The main finding of the Health Risk Manager was to the effect that the applicant was “ totally and permanently disabled to perform duties of her own occupation ( even with adjustments) or any alternative occupation within the Department of Education and/or any other Department within the Public Sector”. It was, inter alia, recommended that the applicant be considered for ill-health retirement, which was approved by the respondent.
3 The applicant was informed of the outcome of the PHS’ assessment in a letter signed by the Chief Director:THRS on 21 January 2021, which the applicant received on 03 February 2021. An internal memo dated 19 May 2021, signed by Director: Tshwaga Cluster on 03 June 2021 was written to the Director: DM Directorate in which a request was made that an incapacity inquiry be instituted against the applicant.
4 The applicant was issued with a notice of the incapacity inquiry, signed by the Head of Department (“HOD”) on 10 August 2021, but received by the applicant on 03 September 2021. The incapacity inquiry was conducted on 14 October 2021, but the outcome thereof was communicated to the applicant in a letter signed by the HOD on 03 December 2021. The applicant, assisted by De Beer Attorneys, noted an appeal on 10 December 2021. The outcome of the appeal was communicated to the applicant in a letter signed by the MEC on 20 January 2022, but received by the applicant on 24 January 2022.
5 Aggrieved by the MEC’s decision, the applicant referred an unfair dismissal dispute to the ELRC, which could not be resolved through conciliation. The matter was ultimately set down for arbitration and it came before me for the first time on 06 May 2022. We reverted to an extended conciliation which could not yield any fruits. Pre-arbitration minutes were drawn and signed by the respective representatives. The full arbitration hearing commenced on 02 June 2022 and concluded on 03 August 2022. Most of the common cause issues and issues in dispute are covered in the factual background except the following issues in dispute:
5.1 Whether the applicant was given sufficient information with regard to the appeal process and the time line in the matter.
5.2 Whether the applicant’s sick notes were considered by the MEC during the appeal process.
5.3 Whether the respondent had appointed a medical practitioner to examine the applicant as envisaged in the Educators Act.
5.4 Whether the respondent had explored alternatives and/or reasonable accommodation of the applicant.
6 Both parties filed written closing arguments, which have been taken into consideration in arriving at the conclusions herein. I am indebted to the submissions made by the parties’ representatives.
SURVEY OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS OBO RESPONDENT
7 Lebogang Mohale testified under oath, and her testimony can be summarized as follows: She is employed by the respondent as an Assistant Director: Dispute Management. She was appointed as the Presiding Officer during the applicant’s incapacity inquiry. Her duties include presiding over misconduct matters and incapacity inquiries. In the case of an incapacity hearing, she does not communicate the verdict to the parties. She only drafts the outcome report and submit it for approval by the HOD.
8 The Presiding Officer’s report entails opening and closing statements by the parties’ representatives, witnesses’ evidence, and the documents that were submitted in evidence. She does not give the outcome report to the parties. She drafts the report and submit it to the Director’s Office, who will in turn draft a submission for the HOD’s approval. After approval is then that the outcome of the enquiry is communicated to the employee. Her role ends with the submission of the report. She does not know as to whether a report is given to the employee or whether a letter is written to the employee.
9 After conclusion of the inquiry she received the applicant’s closing arguments supported by a note or some kind of statement written by Dr Magnus. The statement did not come in the form of a medical note or sick note. She did not consider the statement because Dr Magnus was not called to come and testify to it.
10 During the hearing she only received the Occupational Therapist report which did not come from Dr Magnus. The only documents which she could consider are those were the author is called to come and testify about them. This is the reason why she could not consider the statement from Dr Magnus about the applicant’s fitness for work.
11 During cross-examination, she confirmed that the applicant submitted and testified to the report from Jonas Occupational Therapist dated 09 September 2021, medical certificate from Dr Magnus dated 07 September 2021 and the statement from Dr Magnus dated 20 October 2021. She also received the PHS assessment report dated 07 December 2020. She reiterated that she did not consider the applicant’s documents because of the reasons she gave under examination in chief. These documents were attached to her report which was submitted to the HOD. The HOD had all of these documents when taking a decision to dismiss the applicant.
12 Bongani Ngwenya’s testimony was that the report from Jonas Occupational Therapist dated 09 September 2021 was about the applicant’s functional capacity, and was as such irrelevant. The relevant report would be the one from the applicant’s treating psychiatrist. Mr Ngwenya’s evidence was contrary to the directive of the Chief Director:THRS who advised the applicant to furnish an OT report if she was in disagreement with the PHS’ findings and recommendations.
13 The statement from Dr Magnus was not considered because it is not a medical certificate or sick note. The other reason is that Dr Magnus was not called to testify to it. The medical certificate was also disregard because the author was not called to come and testify to it.
14 She made a number of concessions, which included the following: The applicant was never examined by the respondent’s registered medical doctor or by PHS to determine whether she was permanently incapacitated or not. Dr Magnus would be in a better position to determine whether the applicant was permanently incapacitated or not. In 2021 the applicant was at work. She never saw a report from Dr Magnus certifying that the applicant was permanently incapacitated. The evidence given by the HR Practitioner was to the effect that PHS’ recommendation was based on the report from the applicant’s treating psychiatrist.
15 She agreed with the assertion that the respondent used a one year old assessment report to dismiss the applicant but disagreed that the respondent used an old report. There was no medical practitioner, from both the respondent and the applicant, who testified during the incapacity inquiry. She used the recommendation made in the PHS’ assessment report of 07 December 2020 together with evidence of the HR Practitioner to recommend termination of the services of the applicant. She agreed that the standard which was used in dealing with medical reports submitted by the applicant was not the same standard used for accepting PHS assessment report.
16 The standard practice in the Department is that the employee who is granted ill-health retirement is the one who, after receipt of the pre-termination letter, accepts the Health Risk Manager’s recommendation, whereas the employee who does not accept the findings and recommendations of the Health Risk Manager whose services are terminated in terms of the provisions of Schedule 1 to the Employment of Educators Act.
17 It was not necessary for the respondent to consider securing alternative employment for the applicant because it is only considered if an employee is unable to perform his or her duties. In this case there was no complaint about the applicant’s quality of work because the evidence of Mr Britz was to the effect that the quality of her work was very good, the projects and the tasks were of a higher standard.
18 In as far as adapting the duties or work circumstances of the applicant in order to accommodate her ill health is concerned, she testified that there was no evidence in this regard, but her view is that this option is usually explored before the incapacity enquiry could be invoked.
19 Nonhlanhla Petronella Boleu testified under oath, and her evidence can be summarised as follows: She is employed by the respondent as an Assistant Director, attached to the PILIR unit at Head Office. Her responsibilities include processing employees’ applications for incapacity, which include doing quality assurance. After quality assurance they send the application to the Health Risk Manager for a medical opinion. Upon receipt of the Health Risk Manager’s assessment report, they write an outcome letter to the employee concerned.
20 The assessment of the applicant’s application was done on 07 December 2020. An assessment report in this regard was sent to the Department. The finding of the Health Risk Manager was that the applicant was totally and permanently incapacitated to perform her duties as an educator or any other duties in the Public Sector, which means that even with reasonable accommodation she could not work. The Health Risk Manager recommended that the applicant be retired on grounds of ill health. A pre-termination letter was written to the applicant informing her about the findings and recommendations of the Health Risk Manager. The applicant did not agree with the Health Risk Manager’s findings; hence the matter was referred to the Dispute Management unit since the matter was now a dispute. The Dispute Management unit was expected to institute an incapacity hearing in order to give the applicant the opportunity to state her case.
21 Regarding the relevance of the applicant’s new medical evidence, she testified that Dr Nyati would not agree to do a reassessment of the applicant’s application because at that time he had already taken a final decision. In other words, in instances where Dr Nyati had already made a finding of total and permanent disability and recommended medical boarding, he would not reverse the Health Risk Manager’s findings and recommendations. They normally get these kind of cases, but Dr Nyati would not agree to do a reassessment because he is of the view that such cases must be handled internally by the respondent.
22 It would be difficult for her to obtain the information relating to the delay in processing and finalising the applicant’s application because of the non-availability of the paper trail. Her view is that the applicant did not suffer any prejudice as a result of the delay.
23 Under cross examination, she reiterated that the whole process concerning the submission, processing and assessment of the temporary incapacity leave must take 30 working days. She conceded that both the applicant and the HOD or the person who acted obo the HOD signed the applicant’s application form on 02 September 2020. She further testified that without the data base or paper trail it will not be possible for her to know as to when was the application submitted. She also does not know as to when was the applicant’s application received from the District Office, as to when the application was submitted to the Health Risk Manager, and as to when was the Health Risk Manager’s assessment report received by the respondent.
24 The procedure is that the employee submits to the principal, who in turn submits to the District which ultimately submits to the Provincial Office. The applicant’s temporary incapacity leave is supposed to be provisionally approved by the principal. In this case, she is not sure as to whether the person who signed both as the HOD and the acting ASD was the principal.
25 She conceded that the Health Risk Manager’s assessment was only based on the documents submitted by the applicant as opposed to physical examination of the applicant. This is the standard practice in the Department unless the information is insufficient. She also conceded that the whole process was completed three months after submission of the application as opposed to being completed within the prescribed 30 days. She was unable give reasons for such a delay because of the absence of paper trail.
26 Anton Strauss’ testimony can be summarised as follows: He is the principal of a Technical High School in Krugersdorp. The applicant started teaching at the school a few years ago. She was teaching Engineering, Graphics and Design as well as Mathematics. There are few educators who have been trained in Engineering, Graphics and Design. Whenever the applicant was absent due to ill-health, she had presented doctors notes. The school once had a visit by one of her medical experts to explain her medical condition and as to how they could accommodate the applicant at the school.
27 The challenges that the school experienced as a result of the applicant’s mental condition were not that much about when the applicant was at school but when she was not at the school. The challenges included the school’s inability to secure the services of a substitute educator. When she was at school, the challenges included complaints by some of the learners who felt the applicant was not treating them fairly. Such complaints could have been caused by classroom management and personalities. These challenges often resulted with too stressful situation for the applicant to handle. The applicant would either take a step back from such a situation or request to leave early in order to see her doctor.
28 The applicant is a very strict teacher but was always accommodative of the learners. She was doing her best to accommodate the learners. Unfortunately the learners have a tendency of taking advantage of teachers. In a technical school like theirs it was natural that when enforcing discipline some of the learners might feel that they were unfairly treated. When investigating the learners’ complaints, they could not find any evidence suggesting that either the learners or the applicant were in the wrong. The complaints were mainly caused by learners misinterpreting the situations or caused by different cultural backgrounds. The complaints were always resolved after being investigated.
29 Under cross examination, he testified that part of Engineering, Graphics and Design is practical assessment task, which contributes 25 % to the final mark. Some of the learners did not have the necessary instruments to do the practical work whereas others would deliberately not bring the instruments to school. The applicant used to be absent from work over the years, but she would submit the necessary sick notes and complete leave forms. This would happen at least once or twice a term.
30 The last time the applicant was absent from work for a number of days was in 2020 as a result of her illness. In 2021 she was at school but there were some days where she would take sick leave, which could have been due to COVID-19. The name of the medical expert or a psychologist who came to school with the applicant was Fantin Nel. She came to school during December 2020 after the applicant took temporary incapacity leave.
31 The challenges at school involved learners who did not meet due dates, particularly with regard to practical assessment tasks. The learners would feel unfairly treated when the applicant was trying to enforce due dates. Another challenge involved learners who would be ill-disciplined in class, and complained when the applicant wanted to enforce discipline. This challenge was not only limited to the applicant, but it also happened in some of the classes.
32 Simangele Emelda Twala testified that she is employed as the Assistant Director attached to the Transformation Directorate. She testified about the GDE Policy and Procedures on the Management of Reasonable Accommodation and Provision of Assistive Devices to Employees with Disabilities. The applicant’s case was never referred to the Transformation Directorate possibly because of the fact that the Health Risk Manager had recommended that the applicant be discharged on medical grounds. They only implement reasonable accommodation based on the recommendation of the Health Risk Manager.
33 Under cross examination, she made the following concessions: Their Directorate was never involved in the case of the applicant; hence she does not have firsthand information in this matter. She cannot testify about the contents of the PILIR documents submitted by the applicant with regard to her application for the 2020 temporary incapacity leave as well as the applicant’s medical condition. She did not know whether the applicant was classified as a disabled person in accordance with the Employment Equity Act.
34 Dr Fundile Nyati’s evidence can be summarised as follows: He qualified as a qualified medical doctor and the Chief Executive Officer of PHS which is a Health and Wellness company appointed as the Health Risk Manager for a number of government Department including the Gauteng Department of Education. His qualifications include MBChB, which he obtained in 1989 at the University of Natal. He obtained a Masters Degree in family medicine in 2001, which focuses on common illnesses and diseases.
35 An application for temporary incapacity leave involves different stakeholders, viz the educator, the Department and PHS, which have different time frames within which to submit, process and assess the employee’s application. The applicant’s application appears to have reached the employer on time, but it was received by PHS during December 2020. Primary assessment was done, concluded and send back to the Department within the prescribed 12 working days. The assessment was done by Ms CO Rakgole ( an Occupational Therapist) in consultation with him, and it was concluded and send back to the Department on 07 December 2020.
36 The phrase ‘totally incapacitated’ was described as referring to a situation where an employee is, as a result of his or her illness, unable to perform the majority of his or her professional duties and responsibilities, which does not mean being unable to perform all or 100% of the duties. This kind of incapacity can either be temporary or permanent from a functional point of view. Permanent incapacity, in the case of a psychiatric condition like bipolar mood disorder, refers to a situation where the patient has received optimal treatment for a period of over 2 months, but such a person has not recovered sufficiently for him or her to perform his or her work.
37 The applicant’s mental condition was said to have progressed over time with brief periods of remissions, but the multiple hospital admissions for the same condition suggested that the illness was getting worse. The 2020 medical reports submitted for assessment suggested that the applicant received optimal treatment by both her psychiatrist and psychologist over a period of 2 months, and that her condition is irreversible. She was understood as struggling cognitively. There was no possibility of her recovering to the extent that she could be progressive at the work place, hence she was found to have been totally and permanently disabled for her own job as a teacher and for any other job in the public service.
38 The real problem in the case of the applicant is functionality at a cognitive level, which is the preserve of an Occupational Therapist (“OT”) and not that of the psychiatrist or any other medical practitioner. It would be different if what Dr Magnus was saying about the applicant was based on a report prepared by an Occupational Therapist who had done an objective cognitive test.
39 He described the findings made by the applicant’s OT as suggesting some positive improvement on the part of the applicant. One of the rules applicable to incapacity leave and ill-health retirement concerning what the DPSA refers to as the high incidents cases, such as an application for psychiatrist reasons, is that the medical report should not be older than two months when the application is being submitted.
40 The OT report of 16 September 2021 suggests that the applicant showed marked improvement on her cognitive behaviour and emotional make-up. There should be no concern regarding her work capacity and that she should be able to perform adequately at work. His only concern was that it was not clear as to whether the applicant’s OT had done all the necessary cognitive assessment tests.
41 He does not disregard the findings of the OT assessment showing that there was some improvement on the applicant’s work capacity. His concern was that the assessment was done in Sept 2021, which means that the OT report was at the time of arbitration almost 10 months old. If the employer were to consider reinstating the applicant there would have to be a recent independent OT evaluation.
42 Regarding the medical certificate issued by Dr Magnus on 07 September 2021, he testified that there was something odd with the sick note which suggests that it is not compliant with all the requirements of a valid medical certificate in line with the criteria set by the HPCSA and the directives on leave of absence in the public service, such as specifying as to whether what they are going to say is based on their observations or medical knowledge, stating the beginning and the end of the sick period. If this sick note was to be brought to PHS in support of the applicant’s grievance, they would have to demand a detailed medical report.
43 During cross examination, Dr Nyati testified that PHS considered the totality of the information which the applicant submitted were used to come at a conclusion that the applicant was totality and permanently incapacitated. An occupational disability decision is not a medical decision but the combined impact of all the reports submitted to PHS.
44 The applicant’s application was not about termination of employment but rather about whether the application was valid, and as to whether the temporary incapacity leave should be approved with pay. They also used the medical information before them to exercise their discretionary function to determine whether the applicant would be able to return to optimal functionality.
45 He agreed that Dr Magnus never made a determination about the applicant’s total and permanent disability with the rider that such a determination ought to have been made by an Occupational Therapist. Dr Magnus did the right thing by not making such a determination.
46 It should be borne in mind that the applicant’s temporary incapacity leave was approved. The issue could have been PHS go further and recommended ill health retirement. The problem is that the applicant should have, after receipt of the outcome which went further than what she had applied for, followed a grievance process outlined in the PILIR if she was not satisfied with the outcome of the Health Risk Manager’s assessment. At the beginning, the process was referred to as appeal, but DPS had ultimately decided to replace appeal with grievance.
47 The grievance procedure further provides that the employee’s grievance must be lodged within the internal processes of the Department and must be accompanied by new medical evidence which was not there when the assessment was made, which is the evidence being discussed at arbitration. Unfortunately, the grievance procedure had never been followed. By invoking the Schedule 1 incapacity inquiry, the employee and the employer jumped a step prescribed by the policy.
48 They are not necessarily married to the initial outcome. If ever the new medical evidence could have been submitted to them, and it was found to be strong enough, they could have arrived at a different outcome. There are instances where people in the past were declared totally and permanently disabled from major depression, posttraumatic stress and bipolar mood disorder but after a few years of being at home, they eventually recovered. Others were even reemployed on the basis of reports from their psychiatrists, clinical psychologists and Occupational Therapists.
49 They always handle employees’ grievances which are accompanied by new medical evidence. There are those whose applications were turned back because of the absence of new medical evidence.
50 Determining the disability on account of employee’s ill health is a multidisciplinary decision, which involves skills from several health professionals. The treatment received by applicant was optimal and it was administered over a period of more than 2 months, hence it was decided that the applicant’s condition falls with the definition of permanent disability.
51 Regarding the Functional Assessment Report from Jonas Occupational Therapists Inc dated 16 September 2021, he testified that it was wrong of the Chairperson of the incapacity inquiry to have rejected the report as being irrelevant because the report is about the functional capacity of the applicant. He testified that he was not aware that the applicant went back to work in 2021 and continued to perform her duties as a teacher. He would not be surprised if that was what happened given the fact that she was in remission and things looked good, like it has happened in the past that she would be functional when she is between the episodes.
52 The 2 months rule has been brought about in order to minimize possible abuses that are inherent in the subjective nature of illnesses in the field of psychiatry. As to why PHS has used a medical report which was issued in July 2020 when assessing the applicant’s application, he testified that employee submitted the medical report within the 2 months period.
53 Dr Magnus may only be able to make an educated guess in as far as the applicant’s response to treatment is concerned but she may not be able to do so with regard to the applicant’s occupational functionality.
SURVEY OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS OBO APPLICANT
54 Unika Gerda van Pletzen’s (the applicant in this case) testimony can be summarised as follows:She taught Engineering, Graphics and Design in Grades 10, 11 and 12. The whole subject is a practical subject with a little bit of theory. She was diagnosed with bipolar mood disorder, which is a condition that affects one’s mood. The condition can be managed with medication, psychiatric and psychological consultations. She takes medication such as the mood stabilizer. She sees her psychiatrist, Dr Chane Magnus, twice or three times a year. She is also seeing a psychologist in the name of Ms Fantin Nel. The three of them are working together to keep her functional at an optimal working condition.
55 During 2020 when the COVID-19 broke out it resulted with stress levels for everyone, including teachers and learners, going up. She also had the same experience, which was worsened by increased class size, additional workload, ill-disciplined learners and other work related challenges. She, because of high stress level, had a relapse and consulted her psychiatrist on 31 August 2020 who booked her off from 31 August 2020 until 15 December 2020. She completed an application for temporary incapacity leave: long period on 02 September 2020. She submitted the application as quickly as possible, which could have been during the same week.
56 She went back to work when schools reopened in February 2021 and continued working for the whole year without interruptions. She was only absent from work when she had COVID-19. She never had any relapses since then. On 03 February 2021 she received a letter signed by Ms Dorah Moloi, Chief Director: THRS, dated 21 January 2021 in terms of which she was informed of the outcome of her application, which included a finding that she was found to be totally and permanently incapacitated. She was also informed that should she disagree with the Health Risk Manager’s findings and recommendations she had 4 days within which to make her written representations to be accompanied by her Occupational Therapist report declaring that she is fit to perform her occupational duties, which she did. She disagreed with the Health Risk Manager’s findings because at that time she had recovered sufficiently to perform her duties. She was also supported by her treating psychiatrist in this regard.
57 During the incapacity inquiry on 14 October 2021 she submitted the Functional Assessment report dated 16 September 2021, compiled by her Occupational Therapist. She also wanted to submit a psychiatrist medical certificate dated on 07 September 2021 confirming that she was not medically unfit, but Mr Tsebe said that the medical certificate cannot be accepted because it was not submitted on time. The Presiding Officer also refused submission of the medical certificate.
58 She also had a medical report dated 20 October 2021, from Dr Magnus confirming that she has never declared her to be permanently incapacitated. Dr Magnus further stated that written confirmations were made on several occasions in the past to the effect that the applicant was fit to perform her duties as a teacher. This medical report was handed in when submitting their closing arguments and when noting the appeal against the outcome of the incapacity inquiry. Her appeal was waw lodged by De Beer Attorneys in a letter dated 11/12/2021 11 December 2021 wherein specific reasons were advanced as to why it was believed that the incapacity inquiry was not done in terms of the provisions of Schedule 1 to the Educators Act, and as to why it was believed that the Chairperson committed several irregularities. She received the outcome of her appeal through a letter signed by the MEC on 20 January 2022, which she received on 2January 2022 wherein the MEC confirmed her dismissal.
59 She attends sessions with her psychiatrist and psychologist, and has also joined the South African Depression and Anxiety Group. She has not been able to attend the behavioural therapy sessions offered by Jonas Occupational Therapist Inc because of financial constraints. As a relief, she wishes to go back to work because she believes that, with a lot of experience and scarce skills that she has, she can make a meaningful contribution in helping learners to improve their lives.
60 Under cross examination, she agreed with Ms Boleu that the delay kicks in if the outcome of the assessment is not communicated to her within 30 days, but she is not well conversant with the policy. She reiterated what she said during examination-in-chief as regards the exact date or period within which she could have submitted her application. She disagreed that the delay could have been caused by her by submitting the application late. She insisted that she had submitted the application either on 02 September 2020 or 03 September 2020.
61 As to why after receipt of the letter informing her about the outcome of her application, she did not submit the new medical reports to Dr Nyati for reassessment, she testified that the letter did not make mention of Dr Nyati or the company which did the assessment. She did not know that she was expected to send the new medical reports to Dr Nyati. What she knew is that her treating doctor never declared her to be permanently incapacitated, and for that reason she thought there may have been some misunderstanding, which will be resolved at the incapacity inquiry.
62 Dr Chane Magnus’ testimony can be summarised as follows: She obtained her medical degree, which is MBBC, from Wits University in 1993. She thereafter qualified as a specialist psychiatrist from the same university in 1996. She started practicing in the field of psychiatry since 1997. The applicant was diagnosed with bipolar mood disorder prior to consulting with her, but she started consulting with her since 2014. Patients with this type of mood disorder present with episodes of depression called hypomania or elevated mood, or episodes which are called mixed episodes where a patient has a hysteria mood and other symptoms of depression.
63 The applicant is receiving psychotherapy from a psychotherapist in the name of Fantin Nel. As an inpatient she has been treated by a multi-disciplinary team which included her as the treating psychiatrist, psychologist and an Occupational Therapist. She is also taking medication.
64 She is the one who wrote the sick note in terms of which the applicant was booked off from 31 August 2020 to 15 December 2020. She saw the applicant on 23 June 2020 and advised that the applicant should be admitted to the hospital because the applicant presented severe depression and suicidal adiation. She was ultimately released and went back to school, and consulted with her again on 31 August 2020. The applicant was found not to be coping with her work environment; hence she gave her sick note until the end of December 2020.
65 The reason she wrote the date of return to work as ‘provisionally’ it was because it is impossible to predict whether an episode will remit earlier or later than the date written on the medical certificate. When completing the PILIR forms relating to the applicant’s temporary incapacity leave, she wrote that the applicant was temporarily incapacitated because the applicant’s mental condition is episodic in nature. She has never declared the applicant to be permanently incapacitated.
66 During the 2020 temporary incapacity leave, the applicant’s condition improved to the extent that she was in remission, which means she had no symptoms. That is why she was able to go back to work in 2021. During 2021 she issued the medical certificate dated 07 September 2021 certifying that the applicant was fit for work. She also issued a brief medical note dated 20 October 2021 stating that she has never declared the applicant to be permanently disabled to perform her duties as an educator.
67 She does did not agree with PHS’ conclusion that the applicant was totally and permanently incapacitated because the applicant was not permanently disabled to perform her duties as a teacher. Firstly, it is because to the best of her knowledge, the applicant’s duties have never been adjusted before such a conclusion could be reached. Secondly, she treats many patients with chronic patterns of bipolar mood disorder, and such people are not permanently disabled to be gainfully employed just because they have a chronic condition.
68 Under cross examination, she disagreed with the proposition that on 07 September 2021 she was supposed to have assessed the applicant as opposed to just issuing a medical certificate. In her view, it was not necessary for her to have assessed the applicant because she had seen the applicant in June 2021 and the applicant was medically stable. In other words, the applicant was in remission, hence she did not see anything wrong for issuing a written confirmation that the applicant was not unfit for work. The medical certificate is not fabricated. It is from her clinical relationship with the applicant as her patient.
69 She testified that she completed the applicant’s temporary incapacity leave application forms on 03 September 2020 but does not recall the exact date on which the forms were given to the applicant. She completed the forms, handed the forms to her Secretary and instructed her to send them where they needed to be sent.
ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS
70 I wish to indicate, upfront, that I have decided not to embark on a credibility assessment of any of the parties’ witnesses because I do not think it is necessary to do so. The only people who deserve to be criticized are the Presiding Officer, and by extension the HOD, and the MEC ( to be referred to, collectively, as the departmental officials) as well as the CEO of PHS. The departmental officials are criticized not because they are understood as having had an ulterior motive against the applicant but because of their failure to come to the rescue of the applicant when the objective facts in this case cried out for what Dr Magnus described as “a please help call” on the part of the applicant.
71 The fact that the applicant has been living with a bipolar mood disorder for many years is clearly uncontroversial, but it does not seem as if there is any evidence proving or suggesting the existence of any meaningful and active involvement of the respondent in assisting the applicant to stay afloat. It appears as if it was only in 2021, after the applicant has indicated her disagreement with the findings and recommendations of the Health Risk Manager,that the respondent had to go after the applicant with all guns blazing.
72 The Presiding Officer, besides the fact that she had clearly misconstrued the meaning and purpose of an incapacity inquiry contemplated in Schedule 1 to the Educators Act, was an impressive witness in the sense that she gave an honest account of what transpired during the incapacity inquiry. She even made concessions, without having to dilly dally, about the blunders that she may have made during the incapacity inquiry. She appears to be a person of complete integrity, who is also knowledgeable and experienced about her work. The only concern is that she may have not realized that the devastating consequences that were likely to arise from her findings and recommendations dictated that she was duty bound to act without fear, favour or prejudice.
73 The criticism against Dr Nyati has nothing to do with the medical assessment that PHS conducted in connection with the applicant’s 2020 temporary incapacity leave. Dr Nyati is criticized for his failure to realize that he was at a great disadvantage in as far as the factual situation is concerned, particularly as to what happened after the PHS assessment of the 2020 temporary incapacity leave. He was, for instance, not aware of all the circumstances surrounding the state of the applicant’s health condition and her work environment. He was clearly not aware of the fact that the objective sought to be achieved by PHS’ recommendation for the applicant’s ill-health retirement may have been grossly misunderstood by the respondent. He was also not aware of the fact that PHS’ finding with regard to the applicant’s total and permanent disability was understood by the respondent as suggesting that the applicant was completely and permanently down and out.
74 Dr Nyati was also not aware of the fact that a different grievance resolution procedure was followed by the respondent in responding to the applicant’s dissatisfaction. Besides this unfortunate oversight, which may have been occasioned by less than thorough preparations and the absence of a well-coordinated litigation strategy on the part of the respondent, Dr Nyati has made a meaningful contribution insofar as the meaning of the phrase ‘total and permanent disability’ and the grievance resolution procedure that ought to have been followed in this case are concerned.
75 I wish to make reference to the Policy and Procedure on Incapacity and Ill-Health Retirement (to be referred to hereinafter as PILIR or the policy) in some greater detail because I am, just like Dr Nyati, of the view that this matter should have been dealt with and concluded in terms of the grievance resolution procedure contemplated in PILIR as opposed to the Schedule 1 incapacity inquiry. Paragraph 7.3.5.1 of the policy, in the relevant parts, provides as follows:
“ 7.3.5.1 Primary Assessment
(d) The Health Risk Manager must forward its advise on the outcome of the primary assessment to the Employer in respect of the following:
(iv) The need of the Health Risk Manager to proceed with the secondary assessment to thoroughly investigate-
C. whether the incapacity is of a permanent nature and whether the Employer should investigate and consider alternative employment, or to adapt the work circumstances/duties of the employee in order to accommodate the employee, or to retire the employee on grounds of ill health”.
76 Paragraphs 8.7.2 and 8.8 describe the approach that ought to have been adopted by the respondent, in the following terms:
“ 8.7.2 Once it has been decided that the employee must be retired on grounds of ill-health, the Employer must, without delay, submit the prescribed forms, with copies of all the relevant documentation used for the assessment of the case, including the Health Risk Manager’s advice, to the GEPF for instituting the payment of ill health benefits.
8.8 Shortened application for ill health
If the Employer, following a full assessment of an employee for purposes of long temporary incapacity leave, decides that the employee should be retired on grounds of ill health, the shortened application form for ill health retirement at Annexure F must be completed and submitted without delay to the GEPF…”
77 It appears to me that the Chief Director’s letter of 21 January 2021 may have, inter alia, been intended to achieve the objectives of paragraphs 8.7.2 and 8.8.The letter suggests, prima facie, that the Health Risk Manager’s finding relating to the applicant’s total and permanent disability should not necessarily be understood as a determination which had to be accepted by the applicant without questioning but had to be understood as being intended to give the applicant the opportunity to be heard. The applicant was clearly warned that a disagreement with the Health Risk Manager’s findings and recommendations will result with the incapacity inquiry contemplated in Schedule 1 to the Educators Act being instituted against her. The difference is that she may have not been able to read between the lines.
78 Paragraph 11 of the policy outlines the procedure which should have been followed by the respondent after receipt of the applicant’s written representations as follows:
“ Differences between the employee and the employer
11.1 An employee who is not satisfied by a decision by the Employer may lodge a grievance as contemplated in terms of the rules made by the Public Service Commission.
11.2 In terms of section 35 of the PSA, the Employer requires new medical evidence to defend his/her decision. The costs of such medical evidence would be for the account of the Employer. If the employee requires new medical evidence to proof the substance of his/her grievance, the cost will be for the employee’s account.
11.3 If the employee present, with his/her grievance or in the course of the resolution of the grievance, the Employer with new and materially different medical evidence than that which accompanied the application under dispute, the Employer may refer this new medical information to the Health Risk Manager for an assessment in the context of the application concerned…”
79 Admittedly, the respondent was under no legal obligation to refer the applicant’s new medical information to the Health Risk Manager for reassessment, but it was also not open to the respondent to invoke the Schedule 1 inquiry for the simple reason that there was no evidence or an allegation that the applicant was not performing in accordance with the post requirements that she was employed to perform.
80 Dr Nyati as well as Mr Tsebe sought to suggest that the problem which precipitated the applicant’s dismissal may have been caused by the applicant’s failure to invoke the relevant grievance procedure. I am of the view that this proposition misses the correct context of this case. The objective facts in this case, particularly the Chief Director’s letter of 21 January 2021, suggests that the applicant was expressly informed of a procedure she was expected to follow in the event of her disagreement with the outcome of the Health Risk Manager’s assessment. She was also informed of the specific procedure that would be followed by the respondent in the event the applicant could elect to contest the outcome of the Health Risk Manager’s assessment. It must also be borne in mind that both Ms Mahale and Ms Boleu testified that once an employee refuses to be retired on medical grounds in line with the Health Risk Manager’s findings and recommendations, such an employee is subjected to the Schedule 1 incapacity inquiry.
81 Even if it were to be accepted that the applicant should be blamed for having failed to follow the grievance procedure outlined in the PILIR, such an acknowledgement would not make the respondent’s case better or worse. I am of the view that there was nothing which could have precluded the respondent from referring the applicant’s representations together with the new medical evidence to the Health Risk Manager for purposes of conducting a reassessment so as to determine as to whether the applicant remained totally and permanently incapacitated.
82 The turning point in this case occurred when the respondent opted for a procedure different from the one contemplated in PILIR, in circumstances where it was not necessary or desirable to do so. Moreover and above that, the preferred procedure had nothing to do with the Health Risk Manager’s recommendation (which was ill-health retirement) as well as what appears to have been the real objectives sought to be achieved by the recommendation of the Health Risk Manager. Thirdly, the whole inquiry, as correctly argued by Ms Du Plessis, was completely inconsistent with the principles, procedures and the circumstances referred to in Schedule 1 to the Educators Act. The manner in which the inquiry was conducted, and the end result thereof suggested that the applicant was understood and treated as if she was an uncooperative, unreasonable and ungrateful educator who had to be taught a lesson. When analyzing the manner in which the applicant’s dissatisfaction with the outcome of the Health Risk Manager’s assessment had been handled, the inescapable conclusion is that the applicant was subjected to a disguised disciplinary inquiry.
83 The finding that the applicant was subjected to an irredeemably tainted process suggests that it is not necessary for me to determine the fairness of the applicant’s dismissal in relation to what the Presiding Officer of the incapacity inquiry, and by extension the Head of Department (“HOD”), did or did not do. The fairness of the applicant’s dismissal will as such be determined in relation to: (i) the 2020 temporary incapacity leave, (ii) what happened after the applicant’s return to work in February 2021 and (iii) in relation to the issues which characterized the appeal process.
PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS
84 The first issue I wish to deal with is the allegation of excessive delay. According to the evidence of Ms Boleu and Dr Nyati, the processing and finalization of the applicant’s temporary incapacity leave was supposed to be completed within 30 working days after submission of the application by the applicant. When calculated from 03 September 2020, the 30 working days expired on 13 October 2020, which means that the outcome of the Health Risk Manager’s assessment was communicated to the applicant 112 calendar days after expiry of the 30 working days period. It appears as if the respondent was also of the view that the delay was indeed excessive, hence Mr Tsebe tried so hard, especially during cross examination as well as through the respondent’s heads of argument, to prove or suggest that it is the applicant and Dr Magnus who should be held accountable for the delay on the basis that they did not know the exact date on which the applicant’s application forms were submitted at the school.
85 The first problem with the proposition that the applicant’s application was not submitted as per the version of the applicant is that the respondent could not suggest a date different to the dates suggested by the applicant. The second problem is that respondent’s own witness, viz Ms Boleu, did not know the exact date or period within which the applicant’s application was submitted to the Provincial Office as well as the date on which the application was submitted to the Health Risk Manager. She also did not know the date on which the Health Risk Manager’s assessment report was received by the respondent.
86 Assuming for a moment, that the applicant had submitted the documents relating to her application for temporary incapacity leave outside of the prescribed 5 or 7 working days, and must therefore be blamed for the inordinate delay she is complaining about, the question is whether she should also be blamed for the delays which characterized almost every step of what was done after receipt of the Health Risk Manager’s assessment report in December 2020? The objective facts in paragraphs 3,4 and 5 supra, suggest that almost all the correspondences which moved from one office to the other, and ultimately to the applicant, in the process of trying to implement the Health Risk Manager’s findings and recommendations were generally characterized by a delay of not less than 30 calendar days.
87 The incapacity inquiry was not different from the PILIR process, in as far as the turnaround time is concerned. The inquiry was kick started by the Chief Director: THRS’ letter of 21 January 2021, but it was concluded on 14 October 2021. The final decision of the MEC was only communicated to the applicant on 24 January 2022, which was more than 12 months after receipt of the 07 December 2020 assessment report.
88 What Mr Tsebe appears to have failed to appreciate the fact that section 192(2) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (“LRA”) places the onus on the respondent ( as the employer in this case) to prove that the applicant was dismissed for a fair reason and in accordance with a fair procedure. The fact that the applicant could not indicate, with absolute certainty, the date on which her application documents were submitted to the school does not shift the onus from the respondent to the applicant.
89 Some kind of explanation was suggested by Mr Tsebe either during cross examination of the applicant or through the respondent’s heads of argument. The explanation, which was given for the first time through heads of argument, is that the outcome of the Health Risk Manager could not be communicated to the applicant before 03 February 2021 because the applicant, ‘ just like other educators was on school holidays’. This belated explanation is doomed to fail for being brought at the wrong time. Secondly, it must be rejected because it is over simplistic and misses the context within which the applicant’s challenge is mounted.
90 It is also suggested, again in the heads of argument, that there is a ‘a difference of 25 working days excluding the weekends and holidays’ between the date on which the Health Risk Manager’s assessment was concluded and the date on which the pre-termination letter was signed by the HOD. This proposition, just like an attempt to suggest that the applicant did not suffer any prejudice as a result of the inordinate delay because she was being paid her salaries, is rejected because it is simply over simplistic and misleading. There is no evidence suggesting that there was a time when the applicant was absent from work without leave and/or permission of the employer.
91 The fact that the applicant was also aggrieved by the respondent’s failure or refusal to give her sufficient information for purposes of the appeal process, was disclosed at the early stages of the arbitration hearing and repeated throughout the whole hearing. Even the parties’ pre-arbitration minutes suggest that the applicant was also aggrieved about what happened or did not happen with regard to the appeal process.
92 The MEC, unlike the Presiding Officer of the incapacity inquiry who may not have been assisted to realize that she was presiding over an ill-fated process, was in a comparatively better position to deal with the applicant’s appeal differently. This is so because the nature of criticism which the applicant’s Attorneys of record made against both the Health Risk Manager and the Presiding Officer of the incapacity inquiry suggested that there was no factual basis as well as medical evidence supporting the conclusion that the applicant was totally and permanently incapacitated, particularly after her return to work since February 2021.
93 The applicant’s Attorneys raised issues pertaining to both procedural and substantive fairness of the applicant’s dismissal. I only wish to deal with allegations of procedural unfairness which appear to have characterised the manner in which the MEC has dealt with the applicant’s appeal. A simple description of the approach which appear to have been adopted at the appeal stage is that the MEC, just like the Presiding Officer and the HOD, may have understood the applicant as an irresponsible and arrogant employee who deserved no sympathy from anybody.
94 The applicant’s submissions relating to substantive fairness will be dealt with under a separate topic. I have also decided that it is not necessary for me to deal with specific issues relating to the criticism made against the Health Risk Manager and the Presiding Officer of the incapacity inquiry because of the fact that reasons have already been advanced as to why they should or should not be criticised.
95 It is clear that the applicant’s Attorneys did not only attach what they described as contemporaneous medical reports to the applicant’s appeal, but they have also made extensive reference to the outcome of the assessments made in those reports. It was also specifically stated that the evidence supporting the assertion that the Chairperson of the Incapacity Inquiry made incorrect findings will be fully expounded in the Appeal Hearing. It was further alleged that the applicant’s view is that she had not been properly represented during the incapacity inquiry.
96 Item 3(8)(b) of Schedule 1 to the Educators Act states that the provisions of items 5, 7, 8 and 9 of Schedule 2 are applicable to the incapacity inquiry in respect of ill-health. Sub-items (1) and (4) of item 9 of the Disciplinary Code and Procedures provide as follows:
“9. Appeals.—
(1) An educator or an employer may appeal against a finding or sanction by making an application in accordance with Form E attached to this Schedule.
(4) If the Member of the Executive Council or the Minister, as the case may be, chooses to allow further representations by the educator, or his or her representative or an employer, he or she must notify the educator or employer respectively of the date, time and place where such representations must be made”.
97 It is not clear as to why the respondent did not think it was necessary or advisable that a witness be called to come and give evidence as to why the MEC did not think it was necessary for him to give the applicant and her legal representative(s) the opportunity to make further representations or as to why the MEC had decided to confirm the dismissal of the applicant in circumstances where there was material evidence suggesting that the HOD’s decision ought to have been overturned. This omission must attract an adverse finding against the respondent on both procedural and substantive grounds.
98 It is my finding that the respondent has failed to provide an acceptable explanation as to why the outcome of the Health Risk Manager’s assessment could not be communicated to the applicant within the prescribed time frames. The respondent is also found to have failed provide any valid justification as to why the grievance resolution procedure in the PILIR could not be followed or as to why the applicant could not be subjected to further medical examination before invoking the Schedule 1 incapacity enquiry.
SUBSTANTIVE FAIRNESS
99 The respondent’s case, in the first instance, crumbles at a factual level. The evidence which is said to have been given by the applicant’s supervisor, Mr Britz, and the school principal, Mr Strauss suggest that the correct facts about the applicant’s return to work and the quality of her work were canvassed during the incapacity inquiry. This evidence was reiterated by Ms Mohale and Mr Strauss (who were the respondent’s witnesses) during the arbitration hearing. The evidence of the applicant and that of Dr Magnus was also to the effect that the applicant had indeed returned to work in February 2021, and continued working even at the time of the incapacity inquiry.
100 There was clearly no factual foundation supporting the allegation that the applicant was totally and permanently disabled, particularly after the 2020 temporary incapacity leave. Even the respondent could not make any factual allegations, both during the incapacity inquiry and during the arbitration hearing, intended to prove poor work performance or permanent disability on the part of the applicant.
101 It appears to me that everything that was done by the respondent and all the relevant departmental officials who were involved in this matter, starting with the Presiding Officer, the HOD and ultimately the MEC, was intended to implement or defend the Health Risk Manager’s findings and recommendations relating to the alleged total and permanent disability.
102 It therefore means that Dr Nyati is, comparatively, in a better position to explain the meaning and ambit of the phrase ‘totally and permanently incapacitated’. In the normal course of events, it would be unreasonable to expect the Presiding Officer of the incapacity inquiry, the HOD and the MEC to second guess the outcome of the assessment conducted by the Health Risk Manager. The only difference in this case is that the developments after the 2020 temporary incapacity leave, which included the contemporaneous clinical reports, suggested that the applicant’s case ought to have been referred back to the Health Risk Manager. Secondly, the route preferred by the respondent is not supported by Dr Nyati, which suggests that the respondent may not have been different from an employee who, while on a frolic of his or her own, commits several acts of gross misconduct.
103 It is this glaring omission which has, for the present purposes, rendered the respondent’s case a non-starter from the beginning because there was no possibility that the respondent could have been able to prove the existence of the alleged total and permanent disability on the part of the applicant in the absence of countervailing medical report(s) or medical evidence contemplated either in the PILIR or in Schedule 1.
104 The views and opinions of Dr Nyati on the medical reports issued by Dr Magnus and the Functional Assessment Report compiled by Jeanne Morland of Jonas Occupational Therapists Inc on 16 September 2021, as well as his strong belief that the applicant had been reasonably accommodated by the respondent, were based on the painful reality that he was completely not aware of all the developments which involved the health condition and general wellbeing of the applicant after the 2020 temporary incapacity leave.
105 Admittedly, Dr Nyati opened himself up for criticism in several respects, which included where he sought to suggest that Dr Magnus’ medical assessment of the applicant was either inadequate or completely irrelevant for purposes of determining the applicant’s cognitive functionality. Some of the medical certificates issued by Dr Magnus were somehow criticized as if they reflected substandard work. The assessment report compiled by Jeanne Morland was also welcomed but with some reservations. He, for instance, indicated that he was not sure whether all the necessary tests had been done, particularly the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (“the MoCA”).
106 Dr Nyati appeared to have ultimately realized that his criticism of the work which may have been done by his colleagues was unwarranted, hence he said he respects all of them and the work they have done. The only concern that he had was that the said medical reports and/or medical certificates were old and would not pass the 2 months rule prescribed in PILIR with regard to a mental condition such as the one the applicant is suffering from. The fact that all the relevant medical reports were within the 2 months rule as at the time of the incapacity inquiry renders Dr Nyati’s concerns unmeritorious.
107 Dr Nyati’s parting shot was that if the respondent was to consider reinstating the applicant as a result of the new medical evidence, he would recommend that a fresh assessment report be obtained from an independent Occupational Therapist other than the assessment report compiled by the applicant’s Occupational Therapist. This proposition suggests that Dr Nyati may have misconstrued the nature of the present inquiry as if it is not different from the primary assessment or secondary assessment contemplated in PILIR. He was clearly not aware of the fact that the arbitrator’s decision cannot be deferred until the applicant has been subjected to an assessment contemplated in PILIR or until the applicant has been examined by a registered medical practitioner contemplated in item 3(3) of Schedule 1 to the Educators Act.
108 I am mindful of the fact that Mr Tsebe’s skepticism has find its way into the respondent’s heads of argument. Mr Tsebe ought to have realized that his criticism of the medical reports or medical certificates issued by Dr Magnus could not be sustained, firstly because of the concessions made by Dr Nyati. Secondly, because of the fact that Dr Magnus had not only testified at the arbitration hearing, but she had also accepted ownership of all the medical certificates she had issued disputing the alleged total and permanent disability on the part of the applicant.
109 There is no reason why the medical certificates and the assessment report of the applicant’s Occupational Therapist should not be accepted as constituting relevant medical evidence which should have been considered, first by the Presiding Officer of the incapacity inquiry, the HOD and ultimately by the MEC. The only option available to the respondent, if ever there were any doubts about what was being said by Dr Magnus and the applicant’s Occupational Therapist, was to refer the matter back to PHS or subject the applicant to a further medical examination contemplated in the provisions of item 3 of Schedule 1.
110 The following is said in the Functional Assessment Report compiled by Jeanne Morland of Jonas Occupational Therapists Inc :
“ Ms van Pletzen showed significant improvement since her previous assessment, especially with regard to her depression, fatigue, psychosocial risk measures and self-reported scales. Ms van Pletzen demonstrated sufficient cognitive functioning to return to work.
Ms van Pletzen can fulfil the job requirements of a teacher for N Diederichs Technical High School. It is advised that she continues working in her current position”.
111 The recommendations made by the Occupational Therapist, Jeanne Morland, include the following:
“ Ms van Pletzen should continue treatment with her psychologist and psychiatrist. She should join a Support Group for people living with depression and anxiety, such as the SADAG Support Group”.
112 I accept the evidence of Dr Magnus, both oral and documentary, as well as the assessment report compiled by the applicant Occupational Therapist on 16 September 2021 in support of Dr Magnus’ confirmation that ‘the applicant has been well and stable since February 2021 to fulfil her duties as an educator, and that she is not a danger to herself, learners or colleagues’.
113 The cumulative effect of the evidence led in support of the applicant’s case suggests that, at the time of the incapacity inquiry and throughout the history of this case, including at the time of the arbitration hearing, there was absolutely no evidence proving or suggesting that the applicant was totally and permanently incapacity.
114 In the result, it is determined that the applicant’s dismissal was both procedurally and substantively unfair. The applicant is therefore entitled to be reinstated, retrospectively to the date of her dismissal.


QUANTIFICATION
115 According to the pre-arbitration minutes signed by the parties’ representatives on 06 May 2022, the applicant’s basic salary was R29 206.25 per month. The amount of the arrear salary which must be paid to the applicant has been calculated from 01 February 2022 until the end of September 2022, which equals R233 650. 00.
AWARD
116 The respondent is ordered to reinstate the applicant from the date of her dismissal with back pay equivalent to 8 months’ remuneration, amounting R233 650. 00. The applicant must be reinstated in the position she held before the dismissal or in an equivalent post, on terms and conditions not less favourable than those that existed prior to her dismissal.
117 The arrear salary must be paid by not later than 30 September 2022 or in the next salary run upon receipt of this arbitration award by the respondent. This amount shall attract interest at the prescribed rate from 01 October 2022.
118 The applicant must report for duty at Hoerskool Tegniese N Diedericks on 01 October 2022.


MORAKA ABEL MAKGAA
(ELRC PANELIST)