IN THE ELRC ARBITRATION
BETWEEN: ELRC 1331-25-26NW

BATSEBA S. MOATLHODI “the Applicant”
and

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION – NORTHWEST “the Respondent”

ARBITRATION AWARD

Case Number: 1331-25/26NW

Date of Ruling: 20 OCTOBER 2026
Gcina Mafani
ELRC Arbitrator

Education Labour Relations Council
ELRC Building
261 West Avenue
Centurion
Tel: 012 663 0452
Fax: 012 643 1601
E-mail: gen.sec@elrc.co.za
Website: www.elrc.org.za

1. DETAILS OF HEARING AND REPRESENTATION
   1.1. The arbitration was scheduled for the 7th of May 2026, 11th June 2026, 6th of July 2026 and finalized on the 30th of September 2026. The Applicant Ms. Batseba Moatlhodi together with her Representative Candidate Attorney Boipelo Sibanda were and the Respondent was represented by Mr. Bahurutshe the employee of the Respondent.

1.2. The arbitration was held face to face at the Northwest District Office (Palladium) in Rustenburg.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1. The arbitration is in respect of a referral by the Applicant of an alleged unfair labour ractice relating to nonpayment of salaries as provided for in section 191 of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (LRA.) together with 73A of the BCEA.
2.2. The Applicant’s salary was suspended by the Respondent after she failed to report for duty following her transfer to a new school.

3. ISSUE TO BE DECIDED
   3.1. I am now required to decide whether the Respondent was correct in refusing to pay the Applicant salaries for the month of February and part of March 2026.
4. SUMMARY OF APPLICANTS CASE

4.1. The Applicant, Ms. Matlhoadi, was employed by the Respondent and placed at Kloofwater Primary School, where she taught Setswana, Social Sciences and Natural Sciences to Grades 4, 5 and 6.
4.2. The Applicant testified that employees ordinarily received their payslips before their salaries were paid on the 26th of each month. However, in February 2026, she did not receive her payslip. She consequently proceeded to the District Office to make enquiries, where she met with Mr. Sechele, the Labour Relations Officer, and Mr. Mogatusi, the Human Resources Director. She was informed that she had been regarded as having absconded from duty and that this was the reason for the non-payment of her salary. She was further advised that a letter was not necessary.
4.3. Dissatisfied with the explanation provided, the Applicant referred the dispute to the Bargaining Council. She maintained that she had not absconded from her employment.
4.4. The Applicant testified that she last performed her teaching duties at Kloofwater Primary School in May 2024, when she was placed on precautionary suspension.
4.5. According to her testimony, a meeting was held on 18 July 2025 with Mr. Mogatusi, Mr. Sechele and Mr. Ramong. The matters discussed included alleged unlawful deductions from her salary, her request for a transfer to another school, and the Employee Assistance Programme (EAP).
4.6. The Applicant testified that the outcome of the meeting was that her suspension would be uplifted, while the EAP would assess her readiness to return to the classroom. Mr. Mogatusi was tasked with finding her an alternative school placement. Although the suspension was uplifted almost immediately, she understood that written confirmation would subsequently be issued. She maintained that she never received such a letter.
4.7. The Applicant further testified that the EAP only contacted her during the week of her dismissal, which she placed at approximately 17 August 2025.
4.8. The Applicant testified that, on 4 August 2025, Mr. Mogatusi introduced her to Mr. Moselakgomo, whom she understood to be the principal of the school to which she was to be transferred. The meeting took place at the Mogwase Local Education Office, and the location of the proposed school was discussed.
4.9. The Applicant explained that she was residing at her grandmother’s home in Magung, whereas the proposed school was situated in Mantserre, a considerable distance away. She would therefore have needed to secure accommodation closer to the school. She maintained that she was not informed of the date on which she was expected to commence duty at the new school.
4.10. She further testified that her input concerning the proposed placement and the practical difficulties associated with it was not adequately considered. According to her, Mr. Moselakgomo was released from the meeting before she could engage with him further.
4.11. The Applicant stated that she remained with Mr. Mogatusi after the meeting and informed him that she had a report she wished to discuss with him. She intended to print the report, but the printers were not functioning. She consequently left the premises to have the report printed. Upon returning, she discovered that Mr. Mogatusi had left. She subsequently went to his office to look for him but was unsuccessful and left the report in his office.
4.12. The Applicant acknowledged that there was no further communication following this meeting and conceded that she did not make any subsequent enquiries or follow up regarding the proposed transfer.
4.13. The Applicant testified that a disciplinary enquiry had been held in April 2024, but that she only received the outcome on 18 August 2025. Elsewhere in her testimony, she referred to receiving the outcome on 19 August 2025.
4.14. During cross-examination, she confirmed that her precautionary suspension was initially subject to a period of 90 days, which would have expired in August 2024. She acknowledged that the suspension had been extended to 31 October 2024, or until the conclusion of the hearing, whichever occurred first, and was subsequently extended pending the finalisation of the disciplinary enquiry.
4.15. The Applicant conceded that her suspension had been uplifted following the meeting of 18 July 2025 but maintained that she expected written confirmation of that decision.
4.16. She further testified that she appealed the outcome of the disciplinary enquiry on 21 August 2025. She conceded that the outcome of the appeal concerned misconduct.
4.17. The Applicant testified that, after the meeting of 18 July 2025, she moved to Moses Kotane because she was allegedly being harassed by the police in connection with a protection order against her. She explained that her request to be transferred to another school was also motivated by the circumstances surrounding that protection order.
4.18. During cross-examination, the Applicant confirmed that she had met Mr. Moselakgomo on 4 August 2025 and that he had been introduced to her as the principal of the proposed new school. However, she maintained that she was not afforded an adequate opportunity to engage with him regarding her placement.
4.19. The Applicant conceded that she did not follow up with the new school after the meeting. Her explanation was that the school and the Respondent had a responsibility to clarify the arrangements for her transfer and return to duty. She maintained that the proposed transfer had not been formalised and that the new school had not called upon her to report for duty.
4.20. When questioned about why she had not made enquiries after the meeting of 4 August 2025, the Applicant responded that she had been occupied with other matters.
4.21. The Respondent submitted that the Applicant’s employment had been terminated on the basis of absconsion. It further contended that she had not attended school from 4 August 2025 until February 2026 and that her salary was therefore not paid.
4.22. The Applicant, on the other hand, maintained that she had not absconded from duty. She submitted that, where an employee fails to report for duty, the employer bears a responsibility to communicate with the employee regarding the absence. She further contended that, although she had been informed of the proposed transfer, no formal arrangements had been communicated to her and the new school had not instructed her to commence duty.
4.23. The Applicant accordingly disputed the Respondent’s position that her absence amounted to absconsion, relying on the absence of formal communication concerning her transfer and the arrangements for her return to work.

5. SUMMARY OF RESPONDENTS CASE
   Mr. Lucas Moselakgomo Principal of Mamodimakwana

5.1. The Respondent called Mr. Lucas Moselakgomo as its first witness. He testified that he was the Principal of Mamodimakwana Primary School, situated in Matserre, within the Mogale Circuit in the Bojanala District. He stated that he had been serving as a principal since 2002. His responsibilities included school management, human resources, ensuring the effective delivery of the curriculum, and providing assistance and support to school personnel.
5.2. The witness was referred to page 42 of the Respondent’s bundle, which he confirmed was a letter that he had authored, signed, and stamped in his capacity as principal.
5.3. The witness testified that he was uncertain of the day of the week on which 4 August 2025 fell but believed that it was a Wednesday. He stated that, they had a meeting with the Applicant and Mr. Mogatusi where they discussed the transfer and relocation of the Applicant to Mamodimakwana the following day, in view of the Applicant’s need to prepare for the relocation and secure accommodation, he suggested that she use the ensuing days to make the necessary arrangements and commence duty at the school on the following Monday.
5.4. During cross-examination, however, the witness stated that the Applicant had initially been instructed at the meeting to report for duty on 5 August 2025. He explained that he considered it unreasonable to expect her to relocate and report for duty the following day. In his capacity as principal, he therefore allowed her a few additional days to arrange her affairs and relocate. The witness maintained that the Applicant had been clearly informed that she was required to commence work at Mamodimakwana Primary School. He denied the Applicant’s contention that no commencement date had been communicated to her and reiterated that she had been given directions to report to the school.
The witness further disclosed that Mamodimakwana Primary School did not have a vacant post at the time. Nevertheless, he agreed to accommodate the Applicant because he had been informed that she was experiencing difficulties at her previous school. During cross-examination, the witness was questioned about why he had not contacted the Applicant to establish the reasons for her failure to report for duty. He explained that he had assumed there might have been subsequent changes to the arrangements. He did not, therefore, take the initiative to contact her.
5.5. The witness further testified that, in January 2026, he received a telephone call from Mr. Mogatusi, who enquired about the Applicant’s whereabouts and attendance at the school. The witness informed Mr. Mogatusi that the Applicant had never reported for duty. He was subsequently requested to submit a report to the Department concerning the Applicant’s absence.
5.6. The witness explained that it had not been his first inclination to report the Applicant’s absence. He described his approach to staff management as one characterised by understanding and concern for employees, whom he regarded as his children. He stated that he ordinarily endeavoured to establish whether employees were experiencing difficulties and to determine how he could assist them. However, once the Department enquired about the Applicant, he considered it necessary to provide an accurate account of her whereabouts and could not misrepresent the fact that she had never reported for duty. The witness was questioned about the minutes of the meeting held on 4 August 2025. He explained that the meeting had not been his meeting and that he had merely been invited to attend for the purpose of being introduced to the Applicant. He accordingly indicated that he had no knowledge of the minutes or the arrangements relating to their preparation.
Under cross-examination, the witness conceded that the Applicant ought to have been issued with a termination letter when she was terminated.

RESPONDENT’S SECOND WITNESS
Evidence of Mr. Tshekedi Mogatusi – Deputy Director: Human Resources
6.1. The Respondent’s second witness was Mr. Tshekedi Mogatusi, the Deputy Director responsible for Human Resources. He testified that his responsibilities included overseeing three divisions, namely Human Resource Administration (HRA), Human Resource Management (HRM), and Labour Relations. He further stated that three Assistant Directors reported directly to him.
6.2. The Applicant’s Transfer to Mamodimakwana Primary School
The witness was referred to page 42 of the Respondent’s bundle and confirmed that the document was a letter written by Mr. Lucas Moselakgomo, the Principal of Mamodimakwana Primary School.
The witness testified that, on 4 August 2025, he met with the Applicant and Mr. Moselakgomo at Mogwase to facilitate the Applicant’s placement at Mamodimakwana Primary School. He explained that the Applicant had previously requested a transfer from Kloofwater Primary School to the Moses Kotane area because of difficulties she had experienced at her former school. He had consequently been tasked with facilitating the transfer.
6.3. According to the witness, arrangements for the placement had been made with Mr. Moselakgomo before the meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to introduce the Applicant to the principal and inform her that she would be reporting for duty at Mamodimakwana Primary School under his supervision. The witness maintained that the arrangements were confirmed during the meeting and that the Applicant did not raise any objections to the proposed placement.
6.4. The witness further testified that the Applicant was expected to report for duty at the new school on the following day, 5 August 2025. He maintained that all the necessary arrangements had been finalised on 4 August 2025 and that nothing remained outstanding on the Department’s part. He also stated that Mr. Moselakgomo had informed the Applicant that she could contact him should she encounter any difficulties.
6.5. During cross-examination, the witness reiterated that the transfer had been initiated at the Applicant’s request and that the proposed placement was within the district she had requested.

6.6. The witness testified that in January he called the school to get feedback regarding the Applicant. He was informed at that time that the Applicant never reported for duty, he subsequently received a report from Mr. Moselakgomo indicating that the Applicant had never reported for duty at Mamodimakwana Primary School following the meeting of 4 August 2025.
6.7. He explained that, in terms of the applicable policy as he understood it, an employee who failed to report for duty for 14 consecutive days was deemed to have absconded. Having considered the reported period of absence, the Department recommended that the Applicant’s salary be suspended.
6.8. The witness was referred to page 43 of the Respondent’s bundle and confirmed that the document was a letter he had written advising the Labour Relations Department to suspend the Applicant’s salary.
6.9. He maintained that the Applicant had a responsibility to inform the employer if she was unwell or otherwise unable to report for duty, irrespective of the reason for her absence. He questioned the basis upon which an employee who had not rendered services would expect to receive remuneration.
6.10. The witness further testified that in January 2026 attempts had been made to contact the Applicant. He stated that he had personally attempted to telephone her on two occasions, but her calls went to voicemail. Other officials within the Department had also attempted to contact her without success.
6.11. During cross-examination, the witness maintained that the suspension of the Applicant’s salary was justified in the circumstances, as the Department had been unable to establish contact with her. He explained that the Department anticipated that the non-payment of her salary would prompt her to make contact or present herself to the employer and it did.
6.13. The witness further stated that, had the Applicant required any documentation relating to her placement, he would have expected her to report to the new school and thereafter inform the Department of the documents she required.
6.14. The Employee Assistance Programme
The witness testified that he received a report that EAP had called the Applicant on the 17th of August 2025 to arrange for a meeting with her, however the Applicant stated that she was preparing for the opening of a tombstone. The Applicant was required to engage with the wellness personnel through the Employee Assistance Programme (EAP) before commencing her duties at the new school. The witness explained that the EAP expected the Applicant to contact them again when she was ready to meet with them. However, according to the report he received, the Applicant did not subsequently contact the EAP.
6.15. The Witness’s Role in the Matter
The witness emphasised that his involvement in the matter was limited to facilitating the Applicant’s transfer to another school. He stated that he had been called upon to assist with the transfer arrangements and did not have knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s precautionary suspension or the relevant suspension correspondence.
6.16. He reiterated that the Applicant had been introduced to Mr. Moselakgomo on 4 August 2025 and that she had been informed that she was expected to report for duty at Mamodimakwana Primary School on 5 August 2025. He maintained that the transfer arrangements had been finalised and that there were no outstanding matters on the Department’s side.
6.17. The witness further maintained that the Applicant had not raised any concerns regarding her placement during the meeting. He reiterated that the Department had attempted to contact her following the report of her absence, but those attempts had been unsuccessful.
6.18. He concluded that his role was confined to facilitating the transfer and that the other issues relating to the Applicant’s employment fell outside the scope of his involvement.

6. ANALYSIS
   6.1. The issue to be determined in this arbitration is whether the Respondent was entitled to withhold the Applicant’s salary for the period claimed, notwithstanding her failure to report for duty at the new school after she was instructed to do so on 4 August 2025.

6.2. The Applicant was on precautionary suspension pending the finalization of the disciplinary enquiry. On 4 August 2025, she was informed that she was required to report for duty at the new school on 5 August 2025. From that date, she was expected to resume her duties and report to the school to which she had been assigned.
6.3. The Applicant did not report for duty on 5 August 2025 or thereafter. She also did not contact the school principal, the District Office, or the Respondent to explain her absence or to seek clarification regarding her employment status. There is no evidence that she was granted permission to remain absent after 5 August 2025.
6.4. The evidence further establishes that, in January 2026, the Human Resources Director contacted the school and became aware that the Applicant had not reported for duty. Attempts were thereafter made to contact the Applicant, but those attempts were unsuccessful. The Applicant remained absent while continuing to receive her salary.
6.5. On 27 January 2026, the Principal addressed a letter to the Department requesting that the Applicant’s salary be suspended pending an explanation for her unauthorized absence. The suspension of salary therefore occurred only after the Applicant had been absent for a substantial period and after attempts had been made to establish her whereabouts and obtain an explanation.
6.6. The Applicant’s failure to report for duty must be considered against the fact that she had been informed of the date on which she was required to commence duty. Even if she believed that further administrative confirmation was required, it was incumbent upon her to communicate with the school or the Respondent. She could not simply remain absent indefinitely without seeking clarification or obtaining permission.
6.7. The Applicant’s continued receipt of salary does not establish an entitlement to payment for a period during which she rendered no services and was absent without permission. An employee is generally entitled to remuneration for services rendered or for a period during which the employee was lawfully entitled to remain away from work. There is no evidence that the Applicant was authorized to remain absent after 5 August 2025.
6.8. This approach is consistent with the principle that remuneration is ordinarily reciprocal to the performance of work. In Mogote v Premier of the Northwest Province and Another [2009] 4 BLLR 331 (LC), the Labour Court recognized that an employee’s entitlement to remuneration is ordinarily linked to the rendering of services, subject to circumstances in which the employee is lawfully prevented from working. Similarly, in Samson v CCMA and Others [2010] 8 BLLR 870 (LC), the Court confirmed that an employee who is absent from work without authorization cannot ordinarily claim remuneration for the period of absence.
6.9. The Respondent relied on section 14(1)(a) of the Employment of Educators Act 76 of 1998. That provision provides, in substance, that an educator is deemed to have been discharged from service if he or she has been absent from official duty for a period exceeding 14 consecutive days without the permission of the employer.
6.10. The requirements of section 14(1)(a) are that the educator must have been absent from official duty, the absence must have continued for more than 14 consecutive days, and the absence must have been without the employer’s permission. On the facts before me, the Applicant was required to report for duty on 5 August 2025, failed to do so, remained absent thereafter, and did not obtain permission to remain absent. Her absence therefore exceeded 14 consecutive days and was unauthorized.
6.11. The Applicant was accordingly deemed to have been discharged from service by operation of section 14(1)(a) once the statutory period had elapsed. The deemed discharge took effect after the Applicant had been absent for more than 14 consecutive days, calculated from the date on which she was required to report for duty.
6.12. The fact that the Applicant continued to receive her salary until 27 January 2026 does not alter the legal consequence of her unauthorized absence. Payment of salary after the statutory discharge date cannot create an entitlement where the Applicant was no longer in service by operation of law. The Respondent was entitled to suspend further salary payments once it became aware of the Applicant’s continued unauthorized absence and had taken steps to obtain an explanation.
6.13. The Respondent’s reliance on section 14(1)(a) must, however, be understood as applying from the date on which the statutory requirements were satisfied. The provision does not retrospectively convert all salary previously paid into an unlawful payment, nor does it automatically authorize the recovery of salary already paid. The relevant consequence is that the Applicant had no entitlement to salary accruing after the effective date of the deemed discharge.
6.14. The Applicant’s subsequent disciplinary or termination proceedings do not determine the salary issue. The material question is whether she was entitled to remuneration during the period in which she failed to report for duty and whether she remained entitled to salary after the operation of section 14(1)(a). The later termination of her employment is therefore not decisive of the claim.
6.15. I find that the Applicant was informed to report for duty at the new school on 5 August 2025. She failed to report, failed to communicate with the Respondent, and remained absent without permission. Her absence continued for more than 14 consecutive days. She was therefore deemed to have been discharged from service in terms of section 14(1)(a) of the Employment of Educators Act 76 of 1998.

6.16. The Applicant had no entitlement to salary accruing after the date on which the deemed discharge took effect. The Respondent was accordingly entitled to suspend her salary on 27 January 2026. However, the fact that the Principal reported the absence only on 27 January 2026 does not postpone the operation of section 14(1)(a), nor does it make the Applicant entitled to salary for the period during which she was absent without permission. The statutory consequence arose by operation of law once the requirements of the section had been met.
6.17. The Applicant’s claim for salary after the effective date of the deemed discharge must therefore fail.

FINDING

6.18. I find that the Applicant was instructed on 4 August 2025 to report for duty at the new school on 5 August 2025. She failed to report for duty and did not contact the school, the District Office, or the Respondent to explain her absence or seek permission to remain away from work.
6.19. The Applicant’s absence was unauthorized and continued for a period exceeding 14 consecutive days. She was therefore deemed to have been discharged from service in terms of section 14(1)(a) of the Employment of Educators Act 76 of 1998.
6.20. The Applicant’s entitlement to salary ceased from the date on which the deemed discharge took effect. The fact that she continued to receive salary until 27 January 2026 did not create an entitlement to payment after that date, nor did the Principal’s failure to report her absence earlier prevent the statutory consequence from arising. The Respondent was entitled to suspend further salary payments on 27 January 2026 once her unauthorized absence had been reported and established.
6.21. I accordingly find that the Respondent was entitled to suspend the Applicant’s salary on 27 January 2026 and that the Applicant was not entitled to salary accruing after the effective date of her deemed discharge. Her claim for payment for that period is dismissed.
7. AWARD
7.1. This Application is hereby dismissed.
7.2. No order is made as to costs.

GCINA MAFANI
Arbitrator

24 October 2026
ELRC 1331-25-26NW