Table of Contents

ARBITRATION AWARD

IN THE EDUCATION LABOUR RELATIONS COUNCIL HELD IN

CAPE TOWN

Case No ELRC929-25/26WC

IN THE ARBITRATION BETWEEN

SAMUEL SANDILE BONTSA Applicant

And

WESTERN CAPE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT Respondent

Heard : 10 February 2026

Closing Arguments : 13 February 2026

Date of Award : 02 March 2026

Arbitrator : A.Singh-Bhoopchand

ARBITRATION AWARD #

DETAILS OF HEARING AND REPRESENTATION

This matter was heard virtually on 10 February 2026. The Applicant, Sandile Samuel Bontsa presented his own case. The Respondent, the Western Cape Education Department was represented by Ms O. Tylaliti, a labour relations official within the Labour Relations Directorate of the Respondent.

One bundle of documents was submitted as supporting evidence.

Proceedings were digitally recorded.

ISSUE IN DISPUTE

The Applicant referred his dispute as a “non- payment” of salary. I must determine whether the salary deduction implemented by the Respondent for three days of absence from work was unfair. The Applicant seeks to be reimbursed.

BACKGROUND

The Applicant is employed as a post level 1 educator at the Intsebenziswano Senior Secondary School. It is common cause that he was absent from work on 28 July 2025 and 4 and 5 August 2025 and that he did not report his intended absence to the school principal or to any other management team member prior to the start of the school day.

The Respondent treated the Applicant’s absence from work as unpaid leave and during November 2025 effected deductions from his salary in respect of the three days that he was not on duty. The Applicant claims re-imbursement.

SURVEY OF EVIDENCE

Applicant’s Evidence

Sandile Bontsa testified that he did not phone the school principal on the days in question because his phone was lost. He had all contact numbers and email addresses on the phone, so he had no way to contact the school. Upon his return to school, he informed the principal that he had lost his phone and that he had not been able to contact him to inform him that he was unable to report for duty. He could not attend school on those days as his legs were swollen and painful due to the chronic condition of rheumatoid arthritis that he suffers from. He did not have the opportunity to go to a clinic or to visit a doctor.

During cross examination he confirmed that he lost his phone on 19 June 2025. He said that there was no point in obtaining the telephone numbers of the principal or his colleagues as he had no access to the internet or to a landline or to the phone of any family member or neighbour.

With reference to pages 12 and 16 of the Respondent’s bundle of documents which contain the minutes of meetings where the principal reminded educators of the rule that they must contact him before 7.h30 if they were unable or did not intend to report for duty, he said that he could not recall attending. It was also put to him that he had not informed the principal on previous incidents of being absent and that the principal had spoken to him personally about the need and the importance of the rule. He denied this.

Respondent’s Evidence

Themba Zitazi: He has been the acting principal at the school form April 2025 to date. During 2025 he informed and reminded all educators during staff meetings that they must report to him by 7h30 if they did not intend to report for duty. The rule is important because they need to draft a relief timetable before the start of the school day in order to ensure that learners are not left unattended. He referred to page 18 of the Respondent’s bundle which is an attendance register signed by the Applicant confirming that he was present at the meeting.

It was common practice for the Applicant not to inform him that he would not be reporting for duty. He referred to pages 24 and 25 of the bundles of documents in this regard. It is for this reason that he reminded all staff during staff meetings of the importance of reporting to him. He also spoke to the Applicant personally.

Upon returning to duty after his absence on the days in question, the Applicant did not offer any explanation for his absence other than that he had lost his phone. Given that he had spoken to the Applicant on numerous occasions about need to report to him in these circumstances, and given that the Applicant persisted, he recommended leave without pay for the days in question, although he had approved it on previous occasions under similar circumstances.

With regard to the Applicant’s version that he did not have a phone to call the school, he said that the Applicant had failed to report to him even when he did have a phone. The Applicant had told him that he does not recognise him as the principal of the school and that he therefore does not have to report to him.

ANALYSIS

The Personnel Administration Measures (PAM) provides the following in respect of unpaid leave in cases of unauthorised absence.
Clause H.16.1; Any unauthorised absence shall be regarded as special leave in extraordinary circumstances and shall be without pay unless the employer determines otherwise.
Clause A.4.2.5 (Regulation 23) : An educator shall not, without the consent of the head of the institution, be absent during official duty hours.
Clause A.4.2.1: Educators are required to be present during the formal school day unless prior permission has been granted by the principal.
Clause H5.1 provides that an educator must submit a leave application for any absence. If no application is submitted or approved, the absence is “unauthorised”
Clause H.5.2.4 provides that if an educator is unable to report for duty due to sudden illness, he/she must immediately notify his/her immediate supervisor of his inability to report for duty. The educator must submit an application for sick leave personally. or through a relative or fellow educator, within (5) working days after the first day of absence.

As the manager of the school, the principal is required to monitor patterns of leave. If an educator fails to communicate, the principal has the authority to report the absence as ‘unauthorised’.

The minutes of staff meetings [1] reflect the principal’s clear communication to staff members, including the Applicant [2]that they must report to him before 7h30 if they are unable to report for duty.

It is not in dispute that the Applicant did not inform the principal. Upon his return from school, he did not fill a leave application applying for sick leave.

In failing to inform the principal that he would not be reporting for duty, the Applicant’s absence from school was effectively unauthorised. His explanation that he was unable to report to the principal because he had lost his phone is lame in the extreme. I say this because on his own version, he lost his phone on 19 June 2025 which is more than a month before the days in question. In all that time, while being fully aware of the rule and the importance thereof, he made no effort to ensure that he had an alternative means of communicating with the school.

Under these circumstances, the provisions in PAM as reflected above permits the employer upon recommendation from the head of the school to treat the absence from school as unpaid leave. Given that schools are specialised working environments as opposed to commercial businesses in that they cater for minor learners whose best interests are paramount, the provisions are important and understandable. An educator’s absence from school has a direct impact on learners. Where an educator fails to report to the principal timeously to enable him to ensure that the learners are not left unattended, the educator’s absence from work is unauthorised, which is effectively unpaid leave unless the employer determines otherwise.

Section 34 (1)(b) of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act allows deductions if they are “required or permitted in terms of law or collective agreement. The PAM qualifies as such law given that it is determined and issued by the Minister of Basic Education specifically under section 4 of the Employment of Educators Act.