05 August 2026 – ELRC1058-25/26GP

EDUCATION LABOUR RELATIONS COUNCIL

ELRC1058-25/26GP
Angie Thoko Skosana Applicant

And

Department of Higher Education and Training Respondent
Central Johannesburg TVET College

AWARD

DETAILS OF THE HEARING AND REPRESENTATIVE

This is an award in arbitration between Angie Thoko Skosana, the applicant, and the Department of Higher Education and Training, the respondent.
The arbitration process was held under the auspices of the ELRC in terms of Section 191(5) (a) of The Labour Relation Act, 1995 as amended (act) and the award is issued in terms of Section 138(7) of (the Act).
The arbitration proceedings commenced on 18 July 2026 and were concluded on the 23 July 2026.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Daniel Sekgobela, SADTU official.
The respondent was represented by Mr. TJ Nkambule from Labour Relations.

THE NATURE OF DISPUTE AND ISSUES TO BE DECIDED

The applicant’s dispute is about the alleged unfair labour practice related to deductions implemented by the respondent as leave without pay. The applicant submitted that the leave without pay implemented was unfair and monies deduction should be reversed.
Accordingly, I am required to determine whether the respondent committed an unfair labour practice relating to leave benefits.
To order appropriate relief.

BACKGRUOND TO THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE

The applicant referred an unfair labour practice dispute to the ELRC together with a condonation application. On 09 April 2026, Commissioner M Maarman issued a ruling granting condonation for the late referral of the dispute.
At the commencement of the arbitration process, both parties submitted bundles of documents which were marked Exhibit “A” for the applicant and Exhibit “R” for the Respondent.
At the end of the proceedings, both parties requested to submit written closing arguments which were submitted.

SURVEY OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS
Applicant’s case

Angie Thoko Skosana testified under oath and stated that she is employed as PL1 Lecturer at Central Johannesburg TVET College Parktown Campus. She was involved in a motor vehicle accident on 11 January 2023 and was hospitalized. She later applied for leave which was partially approved from 11 January 2023 until 28 July 2023 could not be approved due to insufficient evidence despite having provided the evidence. The required information was submitted to Ms. R Shezi, at the Human Resource Section, Mr. Mailula, acting Campus Manager, Mr. Madibane, Acting Campus Manager and Ms. A Bakley who was Senior Manager.
Following the motor vehicle accident, she was taken to Sunninghill hospital and later transferred to Louis Pasteur hospital. She was later visited by her colleagues from Marketing department. Around August 2024, Ms. Barkley advised her that she was advised to implement unpaid leave. Ms. Barkley advised her to see Mr. Plaatjie where she explained that she submitted all the required documents but still was penalized. Mr. Plaatjie undertook to check with Ms. Josephine.
At pages 26 to 29 of Exhibit A, the application for temporary incapacity leave signed on 26 March 2023. At pages 45 to 49 are the sick notes related to the leave application. At page 64, she wrote an email to Mr. Plaatjie where she advised her that she went to Dr. Mahasa on Friday who requested her to write an email outlining what Human Resources needed.
Her witness, Mr. Setane Edmond Mailula stated under oath that he is the Acting Campus Manager of the Parktown Campus from 01 January 2024. The applicant is one of the lecturers in the Marketing Department. In 2023, he was the Head of Department in the Marketing Department. At page 9 of Exhibit “A”, he stated that there was correspondence between DHET to the applicant relating to the long period of Temporary Incapacity leave. He became aware of the letter through the Human Resources Division. Ms. Shezi confirmed to him that the letter was sent to the applicant by email and hand delivery. He advised the applicant Ms. Shezi confirmed that the applicant submitted the information required though he did not see the submitted information.

Respondent’s case

Mr. Sabelo Plaatjie, Assistant Director Human Resources and Development stated under oath that he acted as Deputy Principal Corporate Services between 2024 and 2025. He was responsible for Human Resources, Labour Relations, Information Technology and facilities Divisions then currently he is responsible for recruitment and selection, training, performance management and employee wellness amongst others.
At the college, he stated that the incapacity leave application process reports under the Human Resources division and the office of the Wellness section receives and submits such applications to DHET. A service provider, SOMA, appointed by DHET assesses the applications. Should there be information required, correspondence will be sent to the employee concerned.
At page 13 to 14 of Exhibit “R”, is a letter from DHET sent to the applicant. On 31 October 2024, Ms. Josephine Masekela sent the applicant an email where she was advised to report to the Risk Manager and not Human Resources. She was advised to send the email to Matshidiso@dhet.gov.za. If she did not, they will proceed to process an unpaid leave.
He stated that the applicant did not respond to the email and provide the information requested. The applicant was advised to submit the following information:

19.1. Employee must submit sufficient proof that she is too ill/ injured to perform his/her work satisfactory

19.2. The period of absence must be accompanied by a medical certificate issued and signed by a medical practitioner.

19.3. Employee is in accordance with item 10 (1) of schedule 8 of the LRA

19.4. Failure by the employee to submit application within the stated period must be viewed in a serious light and disciplinary steps would be taken.

The applicant did not provide the requested information or forward the information to Matshidiso as requested. Unpaid leave was implemented.

ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS

There is no dispute in this matter that the applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and was admitted to both hospitals as submitted herein. There is further no issue taken by the respondent that the applicant submitted an application for incapacity leave. The outcome of the application was that the leave was partially approved. As a results of the partial approval of the leave application, the respondent implemented unpaid leave for the period that was not approved which resulted in deductions from the applicant’s salary for the period of unpaid leave. The applicant got aggrieved by this decision and referred this dispute to the ELRC. As I highlighted under the issues in dispute, I am required to decide whether this constituted unfair labour practice or not.
The crux of the dispute revolved around a letter dated 04 September 2024 from DHET to the applicant. This letter was from Matshidiso K to Ms. Josephine Masekela. On 31 October 2024, Ms. Masekela sent an email to the applicant advising her of the outstanding information requested for the period not approved. A tract of email on pages 16 and 17 of the Exhibit “R”
The applicant did not deny that she received the email as well as the letter from DHET. The email is clear and specific which give her the information that was required as well as the email address to which such information must be sent. It appears that a period of more than three months was allowed in order to afford the applicant an opportunity to submit the required information to cover the period in issue. The applicant was expected to engage with Matshidiso K and not Human Resources. The applicant has failed to do so.
In the applicant’s bundle of documents, she stated that she submitted the information requested, there was no email attached which point to her submitting documents to Matshidiso K as directed. Instead, the applicant argued that she had been engaging with Human Resources officials. This is concerning because the official from the Wellness Section advised the applicant who to contact and submit information to. Engaging the officials was not addressing the query. At the most basis level, the applicant would have been expected to write an email to Matshidiso and ask clarity if she did not understand what was needed. This did not do. The applicant’s witness could not assist because he could not provide evidence of submission of documents to Matshidiso or HR.
After careful consideration of the evidence presented, I could not find that the respondent committed any unfair labour practice when it implanted leave without pay.

AWARD