09 July 2026 – ELRC1331-25-26NW

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

BATSEBA S. MOATLHODI “the Applicant”
and

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION – NORTHWEST “the Respondent”

DEFAULT AWARD

Date of Award: 08 JULY 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

DETAILS OF HEARING AND REPRESENTATION

The arbitration was scheduled for the 6th of July 2026 and proceeded in default. The Applicant Ms. Batseba Moatlhodi together with her Representative Adv Dr Neo Raikane was present however Mr. Bahurutshe the Representative of the employer was not present.
The arbitration was held face to face at the Northwest District Office (Palladium) in Rustenburg.

BACKGROUND

The arbitration is in respect of a referral by the Applicant of an alleged unfair labour practice relating to nonpayment of salaries as provided for in section 191 of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (LRA.) together with section 33A of the LRA read with Clause 69.6 of the Dispute Resolutions Procedures of the ELRC (Clause 69.6 provides Despite clause 69.5 an educator may refer a dispute to the ELRC concerning the failure to pay an amount owing to that employee in terms of Basic Conditions of Employment Act, the Employment of Educators Act, the Personnel Administration Measures (PAM); or regulation or subordinate legislation promulgated by the Minister of Basic Education or MEC for Education in respect of Province where an educator is employed
I am now required to proceed in default due to the non-attendance of the Respondent’s Representative.

RULING ON THE RESPONDENT’S NON-APPEARANCE

The matter was scheduled for arbitration, partly heard on the 6th of July 2026 at 09h00. At the commencement of the proceedings, the Respondent was absent.
The Applicant applied for the matter to proceed in the Respondent’s absence and for the relief sought by the Applicant to be granted. In support of the application, the Applicant’s Representative submitted that at 08h44 on the morning of the arbitration the Respondent informed them that he had scheduling issues and that the previous day had been his birthday celebration, and he informed them that he would not be attending the arbitration proceedings.
The Applicant’s Representative Adv Dr Raikane submitted that the scheduled date was agreed to by all the parties over a month ago and therefore it is highly unlikely that he would have scheduling issues.
Adv Dr Raikane submitted that the Respondent was approximately two hours away from the arbitration venue. Waiting for him will cause unnecessary delay and wasted arbitration time.
Having considered the submissions of the Applicant’s Representative and the explanation provided by the Respondent, I am satisfied that the Respondent was duly notified of the continuation of these proceedings. The Respondent’s explanation is contradictory. On the one hand, he informed the Applicant’s Representative that he had a scheduling conflict and would not attend because of the birthday celebrations the previous day. On the other hand, he informed the Arbitrator that he had not seen the notification of the hearing. These explanations are mutually inconsistent and do not constitute good cause for his failure to attend.
The Respondent did not lodge a formal application for a postponement, nor did he advance exceptional circumstances that would justify his absence. The late notification of his intention not to attend after the arbitrator had already been scheduled and the parties made themselves available, falls short of the standard expected of a litigant participating in arbitration proceedings
This matter is already partly heard, the date was agreed to by all the parties concerned. The Respondents failure to attend the continuation of the arbitration despite proper notification constitutes a waiver of his right to participate further in these proceedings. It would be unfair to the Applicant and contrary to the objectives of the expeditious resolution of labour disputes to postpone the matter in the absence of good cause.

RULING

The Respondent is deemed to have waived his right to participate further in these proceedings and his case is accordingly closed.
The Applicant’s application to proceed in the absence of the Respondent is granted
The arbitration shall proceed on the evidence properly before the Commissioner together with any further evidence that the Applicant may present.
DEFAULT AWARD 1.1 Introduction
1.1.1. The arbitration resumed as a partly heard matter. The Respondent failed to attend the continuation of the proceedings despite having been duly notified of the date, time, and venue of the arbitration. A ruling was issued allowing the arbitration to proceed in the absence of the Respondent. The Respondent’s case was accordingly closed, and the Applicant presented her evidence.
1.1.2. This award is based on the evidence properly before me.
Background

2.1. The Applicant testified that she commenced employment with the Respondent in 2019 as an Educator stationed at Kloofwaters Primary School where she taught grades 4, 5, and 6. Her subjects included Social Science, Setswana, and Natural Science. She was earning R372 522.00 per annum.
2.2. The Applicant testified that she was placed on precautionary suspension during May 2024. The initial period of suspension was for 90 days, however she returned to the school after 60 days where she found that the Principal was unwilling to engage with her because she had allegedly returned before the expiry of the suspension period. She was subsequently informed that her suspension had been extended until the 31st of October 2024 or until the disciplinary hearing was concluded, whichever occurred first.
2.3. The Applicant further testified that she only received the outcome of the disciplinary hearing on the 18th of August 2025. She stated that she was never informed that her suspension had been lifted and never received any written communication directing her to resume her duties.
2.4. According to the Applicant, she had requested to be transferred to another school because a protection order existed against her at Kloofwaters Primary School.
2.5. The Applicant testified that on the 4th of August 2025 she met with Mr. Maselakgomo, who was introduced to her as the new Principal. She was unable to discuss her return to work because Mr. Maselakgomo was abruptly instructed by Mr. Mogatusi to leave. The Applicant stated that the instructions given at the time were unclear, and she thereafter awaited further direction regarding her return to duty. No such instructions were communicated to her.
2.6. The Applicant testified that at the end of February 2026 she discovered that no salary had been paid into her account. Upon making enquiries, she was informed that the Respondent regarded her as having absconded from duty. She immediately reported to the District Office to make enquiries about her employment status.
2.7. The Applicant denied that she absconded. She maintained that she had remained available for duty and was awaiting clear instructions from the Respondent regarding when and where she was required to report for work following the conclusion of the disciplinary process.
2.8. The Applicant seeks payment of her salary for February 2026 and two weeks salary for March 2026. 3. ANALYSIS
3.1 The Respondent elected not to attend the continuation of these proceedings and consequently failed to rebut the Applicant’s version.
3.2. There is no evidence before me that the Respondent instructed the Applicant to report for duty, warned her that her continued absence would constitute abscondment, or followed any process to establish that she had deserted her employment. The Applicant testified that the uplifting of her precautionary suspension was not communicated in writing, she testified further that the Respondent failed to clarify her reporting arrangements.
3.3. In the absence of any evidence from the respondent, I am unable to conclude that the Applicant deliberately absconded from work. On the probabilities, her explanation that she remained available to resume duty but awaited clear instructions is plausible and unchallenged.
3.4. The Respondent withheld the Applicant’s remuneration for February 2026 and part of March 2026 on the basis that she had absconded. On the evidence before me, the Respondent has failed to establish a lawful basis for withholding the Applicant’s salary.
3.5. I accordingly find that the Applicant has discharged the onus of proving that she is entitled to payment of the remuneration claimed.

AWARD
3.1. The Respondent is ordered to pay the Applicant her salary for the month of February 2026 an amount of R 31 043.50 and R 15 521.75 for the month of March 2026 less all lawful statutory deductions.
3.2. Payment shall be made within 14 (fourteen) days of the date of this award.
3.3. No order is made as to costs.