06 May 2025 -ELRC1196-24/25GP

Commissioner: Nzwisisai L Dandadzi
Case No.: ELRC1196-24/25GP
Date of Award: 05 May 2025

In the matter between:

NTULI LETTA
(Union / Applicant)

And

GAUTENG DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
(Respondent)

DETAILS OF THE HEARING

The matter was heard via Microsoft Teams on 9 April 2025. The Applicant, Lettah Ntuli, appeared in person, while the Respondent was represented by Mr George Mbonde, an official from the Gauteng Department of Education.
The Applicant referred a dispute to the Council contending that she had not been paid monies due to her in respect of a salary while she was on authorised sick leave.

BACKGROUND

The Applicant was employed by the Respondent as an educator Level P1 on 1 May 2017 and earned a monthly salary of R36 824,05. The Applicant was placed on medical incapacity leave and she contends that her medical incapacity leave was until October 2024, however she was not paid part of her October salary while she contends that her leave was authorised. The Respondent contends that the Applicant’s medical incapacity leave came to an end on 30 September 2024 and any period of absence after that date was unauthorised leave. The employer was therefore entitled not to pay the Applicant for that period.

ISSUES TO BE DECIDED

I must determine whether the Applicant is owed any salary by the Respondent as claimed.

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS

What follows below is a summary of the evidence led at the proceedings. The recordings and handwritten notes contain a full record of all the evidence that was lead at the hearing.

The Applicant testified that she was employed by the Respondent as a Level P1 educator on 01 May 2017. The Applicant earned a monthly salary of R36 824,05. The Applicant testified that she was on leave for three months, ending 31 October 2024, however she was not paid part of her October salary and would like the Respondent to pay her outstanding salary. The amount that is due to the Applicant is R10347,85 for November 2024 and R4607,93, for December 2024 therefore a total of R14 955,78. Upon realising that she had not been paid her salary, she approached Mr Mbonde at the district office who advised her to put her query in writing to the principal, she followed up on her quey, however the Principal did not respond to her query, she then went back to Mr Mbonde to advise him that the Principal was refusing to assist her with the query. Subsequent thereto, she received a response that her grievance had been attended to and she had not been paid because her absence was unauthorised. The Applicant testified that her medical incapacity leave form authorising leave from 1 August to 30 September 2024 could not have could not have been processed by the Respondent as it did not have the medical diagnosis. The specialists had authorised that she be on leave for three months, however the Principal had removed the said form from her file. She had given the Principal the two forms at the hospital on two separate occasions, one before her diagnosis and another after her diagnosis. The one with the leave recommendation for three months was provided to the Principal after her diagnosis that she was delusional and not fit to be teaching learners.
The Applicant testified extensively regarding a protection order she had taken against the Principal prior to her returning to work on 1 October 2024 because she felt that she was feeling better and could resume her duties. When she went to the school, the Principal however told her to go back home as she was on leave until the end of October 2024. The matter escalated to the police as the Principal was violating her protection order. On 8 October 2024, she again went to the school, however the Principal called paramedics to take her to the hospital as the Principal said she was a psychiatric patient and was insisting on coming to school while still on leave. After this incident she decided to stay at home for her safety. The Principal tried to call her on several occasions, however she blocked her. When the Applicant went to school in November 2024, the Principal told her that she did not want her at the school anymore.
Under cross examination the Applicant testified that she had not gone to school because the Principal persecuted her and did not want her at the school and told her that according to her records she was on leave. The Applicant was of the view that she felt better and decided to go to work in October 2024, even though she was still on leave because the doctors have booked her off for three months. She had received a notice of caution from the Principal for failing to report for duty in October, however it is the Principal who had told her that she should not come to work. When the witness was asked to explain the contraction of the Principal saying the Applicant must stay at home and then serving her with a notice of caution for failing to report the work, the Applicant stated that the Principal was confused.
The Applicant testified that she had not seen the Principal remove her Pilar forms from the files, however the forms were now missing after she had given them to her. It was clear to the Applicant that according to her medical records and medical certificate she had been booked off until 30 September 2204. The Applicant stated that it was not correct as the form did not have her diagnosis. It was put to the witness that the Principal had received the Pilar form signed by Dr Molete, her consulting doctor, the Applicant denied that was the correct form and stated that she would not be discussing the said form as the forms had been changed on her file. The witness testified that the medical form that was given to the director did not have a diagnosis, however the Respondent had now taken parts of the form with the diagnosis and “fused” it with the one without a diagnosis recommending leave for two months until 30 September 2024.
The Respondent’s first witness was Rose Ndala who testified that she was the Principal of the School where the Applicant was an educator. The witness testified that she had a good relationship with the Applicant as with all other educators and she denied that she had personal vendettas with the Applicant. The witness had gone to the hospital to collect the Applicant’s medical certificate after she called her to come around 5 August 2024, she did not meet with the Applicant but was given the medical certificate by the sister in charge at the hospital. The medical certificate stated that the
Applicant would be booked off until 30 September 2024. She went back again to the hospital on the Wednesday to collect the Pilar forms and again on this occasion did not meet with the Applicant. In October 2024, the Applicant reported for duty, then decided not to come to work and stopped reporting for duty. Thereafter she sent a notice of caution to her as she was not reporting for work. The Deputy Principal took the notice of caution to the Applicant who refused to sign it and advised the Deputy Principal that she would not be reporting for work unless the Principal was arrested.
Under cross examination the witness testified that the Pilar form with the diagnoses was the only form she had received from the hospital. She had received the medical certificate and the Pilar form from the hospital It was put to the witness that she had mislead the director in respect of the medial forms and the witness stated that she did not have to answer to that.

ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS

It is not in dispute that the Applicant was on leave for medical reasons. What Is in dispute is the duration of the leave. The Applicant contends that she was on leave for a period of three months while the Respondent contends it was for a period of two months. As a result of this discrepancy in the leave duration, the Respondent did not pay the Applicant for certain days that she did not report for duty in October 2024. It is common cause that the Applicant in the early days of October reported for duty. The Respondent’s witness stated that she stopped reporting on her own accord with no explanation or excuse which then resulted in a letter of caution being sent to the Applicant. Following the letter of caution, the Applicant still did not report for duty. The Applicant contends that her leave was authorised for three months, however she on her own accord in October decided to go to work because she was feeling much better, however the Principal denied her to teach the learners contending that she was still on leave. The Applicant stated tat she had a protection order against the Principal, Ms Ndala. While the Applicant led this evidence in chief, she did not put this version to the Principal at all. If this was the real reason for her absenteeism, it was important that it be put to her, however it was not. In light of this version not being tested with Ms Ndala I find this version to be improbable.
The Applicant contended that she had given they Applicant two Pilar forms, one with a recommendation for leave for three months and one with a recommendation for two months. Ms Ndala’s testimony was that she had received only one Pilar form and a medical certificate from the doctor as she was not permitted to see the Applicant who was sedated and unable to meet people. The Applicant contends that the Pilar form that was given to the director did not have a diagnosis, therefore the leave could not have been approved and she is of the view that the Respondent removed some forms from the alleged first Pilar form and changed them with the pages with a diagnosis on the second Pilar form. The Respondent contends that the Applicant’s leave approval was based on the Pilar form the principal received from the hospital and submitted. The Applicants’ contentions are in my view unsubstantiated and merely speculative. She contends that there are two Pilar forms that she gave the Principal, the Principal contented she met with the nurses at the hospital who gave her the medical certificate and the Pilar form respectively, she never had any contact with the Applicant. I see no reason and none was advanced to me on why the Principal would change pages on the Applicant’s Pilar application forms. On the evidence before me, the Applicant’s leave was authorised for a period of two months until 30 September 2024.
While the Applicant refused to sign for the notice of caution when that was presented to her on 23 October 2024, she was aware that the Principal had issued one for her allegedly not attending at school however, despite this the Applicant still failed to attend at school after becoming aware of this notice nor ask the Principal why she was issuing her with a notice of caution while she was still on leave, alternatively why the Principal had asked her to stay at home.
Certain questions were put to the Applicant and she simply refused to answer those questions. As a result of the Applicant’s refusal to answer questions, I must accept the Respondent’s version on a balance of probabilities.
I find on a balance of probabilities that the Applicant’s absence from 17 October 204 to 31 October 2024 was not authorised as she was no longer on leave. I find that the Applicant was aware of this fact and that is why she had started going to work and had reported for duty 1 October 2024 and a few days that followed before deciding to stop going to school again. The Applicant is therefore not entitled to the amount of money as claimed.

AWARD