ARBITRATION AWARD Panellist/s: Seretse Masete Case No.: ELRC12-25/26LP Date of Award: 09 July 2025

In the ARBITRATION between:

Sehlapelo Ramaoto Joas
Union/Applicant’s representative: Seopa Maruta Martin

(Union / Applicant)

And

Education Department of Limpopo
1st and 2nd Respondents’ representative: Portia Modipa

(Respondent)

Particulars of proceedings and representation

1. The matter was held on 26 June 2025 at the respondent’s premises in Polokwane.
2. The Applicant, Sehlapelo Ramaoto Joas, was represented by Maruta Martin Seopa from SADTU and the respondent, Education Department of Limpopo was represented by Portia Modipa.
3. The proceedings were in English and digitally voice recorded.

Background and Nature of the dispute

4. The applicant was employed by the respondent as a PL1 educator in October 2013 and he was placed at Moria Primary School. His basic salary at the time of the dispute was R26, 286-00 per month.
5. The respondent allegedly failed to pay his salary from March to May 2023.
6. He challenged the conduct of the respondent and sought to be paid.
7. The respondent challenged the applicant’s allegations citing that he never reported for work on March, April and May 2023.
8. The applicant testified as a witness and called one other person to serve as his witness. He further submitted one bundle of documents marked A, while the respondent called one witness and submitted one bundle of documents marked R.

Survey of evidence by the applicant.
The applicant, Sehlapelo Ramaoto Joas, testified under oath as follows:

9. The respondent failed to pay him his salary for the months of March, April and May 2023. In January 2023, he reported for work from the 9th to the 12th of. By that time, his name was not appearing on the register. He enquired with the deputy principal who told him that indeed his name was not on the register. On 09 January 2023, he wrote a letter to the principal to allocate him the subjects, see page 16 of bundle A. On 12 January 2023, he submitted the same letter to the circuit office, see page 18 of bundle A, where he informed the circuit manager that he resorted to stay at home due to the problem. He later informed his union to report the matter to the respondent and the union promised him that they would talk to the circuit officials. The respondent could not say it did not know his whereabouts because he interacted with its officials, also see page 21 of bundle A. On 03 March 2023 the district director informed him that he would come back to him with a response. A letter reporting his abscondment is on page 20 of bundle A. Abscondment to him was being absent for 14 consecutive days, see page 39 of bundle A. The letter of abscondment came after he went to the office of the HOD. He received the notice of allegations around August 2023. By the time he was charged, his salary was already activated as it was activated in June 2023 at the time of him reporting at the circuit office. The respondent attempted to return him to the workplace around the end of May 2023. He however, was stopped from entering the premises. His union wrote a letter on 21 June 2023 requesting access to Moria Primary School, see page 26 of bundle A.
10. He was barred from entering the premises at that time. It was put to him that he never informed the principal that he was back. He answered by saying that he did inform the principal that he was back at work. On 16 March 2023 he referred a grievance complaining about him being declared additional to the staff establishment, see page 63 of bundle R. He did not say anything about him being barred because it was the security of the church which stopped him. It was put to him that how could he be barred on 12 March 2023 but managed to submit the grievance on 16 March 2023. It was further put to him that the principal would come and testify that there was no one who stopped him from entering the school and that he was angry because he was declared in excess. He answered by saying ok.
11. The register on page 12 to page 14 of bundle R indicated that he was never at school because that register was not used then. He, however, sneaked into the principal’s office to submit the grievance dated 16 March 2023. Sometimes he did not report for duty because he would be consulting the doctor as per page 29 of bundle A. A letter on page 61 of bundle R was complaining about him failing to submit leave forms. It was put to him that he did not submit the leave forms because in 2023, he was reporting at the circuit office. He responded by saying the letter on page 50 of bundle R was a fabrication because he was in the office of the HoD on the 2nd of March 2023, as per the letter on page 21 of bundle A. On 19 January 2023 he was in the circuit manager’s office. The circuit manager promised to respond to him on or before 07 March 2023. He did not absent himself from work, he was barred from entering the work premises. His relationship with the principal was not sour. When going to the school, he did it like any other person who was prepared to work. He did not believe that the WhatsApp messages were genuine because they looked suspicious.
12. He was barred from entering the premises of Moria. No investigation related to the matter was done.

2nd witness, Seimela Maboku (Maboku), testified under oath as follows;

13. He recognised the letter written by the Mankweng Branch of SADTU on page 26 of bundle A in which they were requesting to accompany the applicant to the school. They had to accompany the applicant to the school because as the site steward, the applicant communicated with him regularly. At some point the applicant informed him that he was barred from entering the premises on several occasions. The district director agreed to accompany him but they also were denied entry. The applicant was indeed supposed to go to work, but he could not because he was denied access.
14. He would say he was aware of everything which was happening at the applicant’s school because the site steward always interacted with him. He was aware of the grievance on page 63 of bundle R. The grievance was an initial challenge the applicant had with the department, and he was dealing with Rationalisation and Redeployment ( R&R) process by then. The applicant did not talk about being barred from entering the school premises because he (Maboku) advised him to first deal with the R& R issue. The R&R process was a tool used by the principal to make sure that the applicant could not enter the school premises.
15. The applicant indicated to him that the guidelines in the collective agreement were not properly implemented. Although he was not satisfied with the R&R process, it would not be correct to conclude that he was not reporting because of his dissatisfaction with the R&R processes. He was asked as to why did the applicant not refer the dispute of failure by the respondent to follow the R&R rules. He responded by saying the letter on page 26of bundle A, was written after the freezing of the applicant’s salary, but there were some verbal communications with the respondent. Between March and May 2023, the applicant was at some point prohibited from entering the premises and both parties agreed that he should, in the interim, report at the circuit office. It was put to him that the applicant testified that he started reporting at the circuit office in June 2023. He answered that he could not dispute that because he did not have the records to that effect. He knew that the respondent would pay the applicant for the work rendered, but the respondent blocked him from doing so. It was put to him that the applicant knew the processes to follow when he was prohibited from entering the school premises. He responded by saying that the proof that the applicant was prohibited was the fact that the church representative prevented them. They even told him to write an email indicating why the applicant should be allowed and he did write and sent it.
16. He tried to resolve the matter with the circuit manager but in vain.

Survey of evidence by the respondent.
The witness, Maokana Madidimalo (the principal), testified under oath as follows:

17. She was the principal of Moria Primary School having started in 2019. The applicant was no longer reporting for work at the school. She last saw him on 11 January 2023. He reported only on 9,10 and 11 of January 2023 and he complained that she did not include him in the register. The first letter the applicant submitted was hand written. In October 2022, the applicant was declared in excess. He was initially teaching at a secondary school and therefore struggled with the primary school children; hence he was declared in excess. He was last seen at the school on 11 January 2023 when submitting the complaint letter. The school was busy trying to allocate subjects to him but he left. He did not inform her of his whereabouts.
18. In the grievance letter, on page 63 of bundle R, the applicant was complaining about him being declared in excess. The above letter was received by Mr Manaka, the deputy principal. It was for the first time for her to hear that the applicant was barred from entering the premises. She never instructed anyone to bar him from entering the school. She did not know if the respondent would pay him for such a long period of absence. There was no grievance submitted about the alleged blocking.
19. The applicant did not go to sign the register on the days he was seen at the school. She did not comment to the fact that the register was fabricated. She did not respond to the grievance because the circuit already had collected the documents and the applicant did not come to discuss the matter with her. Should a teacher not report for work, she would call that teacher to discuss why. The WhatsApp messages were to show that the applicant was always absent from work previously. She remembered that she wrote the letter in December 2023. It was asked as to why was not he paid because he was charged with misconduct and subjected to a disciplinary hearing. She answered by saying she was not responsible for finances.
20. She never tempered with, or fabricated the attendance register after the applicant’s complaint. The letter on page 61 of bundle R, could have been written in December 2023 and she might have made mistakes with the dates.

Analysis of the evidence and arguments

21. The dispute before me was abut failure by the respondent to pay the applicant his salary for March, April and May 2023.The dispute was therefore about remuneration. The Council has jurisdiction to hear a dispute for the enforcement of a condition in terms of BCEA. This follows that the ELRC can therefore listen to the dispute of failure by employers to pay salaries to employees, see. MS Manganyi vs Department of Education Limpopo PSES614-14/15 LP read with clause 69-part C of the ELRC constitution.
22. The applicant argued that he was barred from entering the premises of the school by the church security officials who were instructed by the principal to do so. The principal denied the allegations during her testimony and the applicant did not challenge her by cross questioning her on that point. There was also no evidence to corroborate that it was the principal who caused him to be barred from entering the premises (that is if he was barred). Both the parties did not call the security officials to come and testify. The argument by the principal was that she had nothing to do with the church security officials. The letter on page 26 of bundle A, has the subject: Request of access to Moria Primary School premises. The main issue in the letter was a request to return the applicant to his workplace. His absence from the school was as a result of the conflict that occurred between him (applicant) and the principal on R&R matters. The letter therefore did not say anything about the applicant being barred by the security from entering the school premises.
23. The applicant further testified that he sneaked into the principal’s office to submit the letter dated 16 March 2023 to her(the principal). The question is how did he enter the premises when submitting the letter? Such information was not presented to me. My take on the balance of probabilities is that there was no evidence to corroborate that the applicant was barred from entering the school premises. The principal was not challenged when she refuted that she instructed the church security officials to prevent the applicant from entering the school premises. She was further not challenged when she testified that she did not have anything to do with the church security officials. The letter on page 26 of bundle A, which the applicant relied on that it was a proof that he was barred from entering the school premises, did not say anything about the applicant being barred from entering the school premises, but it provided that there was a conflict between the applicant and the principal with regard to the R&R. My take on the balance of probabilities is therefore that the request to access Moria Primary School premises was for the purpose of resolving the impulse between the principal and the applicant with regard to R&R issues. Maboku testified that the principal used the R&R to prevent the applicant from entering the school premises, but that version was not substantiated.
24. Something was not adding up with regard to the applicant’s version that he was barred from entering the school premises, against the version that, in March 2023, he sneaked into the principal’s office. He did not say he sneaked into the school premises. Should he have said he sneaked into the school premises, I would assume that he managed to avoid the security officials at the gate. By saying he sneaked into the principal’s office, showed that he walked through passing the gate and sneaked into the principal’s office without her (principal) being aware. He further testified that he gave the letter of complaint to the principal, but the principal denied that and testified that the applicant gave the letter to the deputy principal, and the applicant did not challenge her.
25. The principal further testified that he (applicant) was last seen by her at the school on 11 January 2023. The applicant never challenged the principal. The applicant in his own testimony confirmed that he did not inform the principal that he was back at the school. He further did not lodge any grievance on the issue of him being barred from entering the school premises by the church security officials. He also testified that sometimes he would not report for work because he would be consulting the doctor. The sick note he referred to on page 29 of bundle A, showed that he consulted the doctor on 19 January 2023, but the doctor booked him sick with effect from the 16th of January 2023. That cannot be a true reflection of the state of affairs on the balance of probabilities. The doctor did not examine him on the 16th, 17th and 18th of January 2023, but he booked him retrospectively. This does not add up. The principal testified that she was busy allocating the subjects to him on 11 January 2023 but he (applicant) left without even informing her of his whereabouts. The applicant did not challenge that version by the principal.
26. With regard to the disciplinary hearing, my take on the balance of probabilities is that, to be charged with allegations of absenteeism without permission, does not necessarily mean that the offender should be paid for the days absent. It is not a double jeopardy at all. The applicant was charged for being absent without permission, payment or non-payment for the days absent is a different matter. Stopping the applicant’s salary has got nothing to do with the disciplinary hearing and the sanction. From the evidence presented, the stoppage of the salary was effected because the applicant was not reporting for work (the principle of no work no pay). He who alleges bears the onus of proof. The applicant alleged that the register was manufactured and fabricated, but he did not produce the alleged unfabricated register.
27. My conclusion on the balance of probabilities is that, it was the applicant’s case to prove the unfair conduct of the respondent, but he failed to account for all the days he was absent from work. The applicant therefore failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that he did work for the three months on which he claimed the respondent failed to pay him and his prayers therefore stand to fail. Award
28. The conduct of the respondent by declining to pay the applicant the salary for March, April and May 2025 was justified.
29. The applicant’s case is dismissed.
30. There is no order with regard to costs.

Seretse Masete Date 09/07/2025

ELRC Panellist