Panellist: Khuduga Tlale
Case Reference No.: ELRC485-25/26FS
Date of award: 06 October 2025

In the matter between:

SADTU obo Mpeta, Cikizwa Perseverence Applicant

And

Department of Education – Free State Respondent

ARBITRATION AWARD

Details of hearing and representation

1. The arbitration hearing between SADTU obo Mpeta, Cikizwa Perseverence (“the Applicant”) and Department of Education – Free State (“the Respondent”) was held on 01 October 2025 at the respondent’s offices in Welkom. The applicant appeared in person, and Mr. BE Matseletsele, full-time shop steward; represented her. The respondent was absent, and not represented.
2. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the respondent at the scheduled time of commencement at 09h00 and even after 30 minutes’ grace period at the arbitration proceedings. According to the ELRC case file, the respondent party was notified about today’s proceeding by email (P.Chakela@fseducation.gov.za & V.Gubuza@fseducation.gov.za) on 04 September 2025. The respondent’s representative, Mr. Moloi phoned the case management officer on the morning of the hearing requesting him to ask the commissioner to phone him, because he had another matter in Bloemfontein. I, as the commissioner informed the case management officer that I would not do that because they should have send someone from their offices to come to the proceeding to make a formal application for postponement. I am satisfied that the respondent was properly notified of today’s proceeding. The hearing proceeded in the absence of the respondent.
3. This proceeding was conducted in English, and was manually and digitally recorded.

Issues to be decided

4. The issue to be decided is whether there is any amount owing to the applicant by the respondent. If I find that there is any amount owed, the applicant sought for the amount in question to be paid. Background to the dispute
5. The applicant was employed by the respondent as a substitute educator (PL1) at Boase Primary School at Lejweleputswa District, on a fixed term contract from 18 July 2023 to 30 September 2023. The applicant assumed duty on 18 July 2023, and she rendered service. She continues to work until 30 September 2023 without been remunerated. The applicant earned R26 554, 00, per month.
6. The applicant referred an alleged non-payment of salary dispute to the Education Labour Relations Council (“the Council”). This matter remained unresolved at the conciliation, and the certificate of non-resolution issued. The applicant party submitted a bundle of document that was marked bundle A, pages 1-7.

Survey of Evidence

THE APPLICANT’S EVIDENCE
First Witness: Ms. Cikizwa Perseverence Mpeta

7. The witness testified under oath that she was the applicant in this matter. The respondent did not pay her salary for the period 18 July 2023 to 30 September 2023. She enquired from the school principal about the non-payment of her salary. She made several pay query, and she was promised to be paid. She reported for duty, signed the attendance register, and she rendered service for the said period. The respondent’s official from Lejweleputswa District, by the name of Mr. Mofokeng, informed her over the telephone that she must be thankful that she got a permanent post, and there was nothing to do.
8. The respondent’s official from head office, by the name of Mr. Mothusi, said that she must be paid her salary for the work rendered. She had a long, back-and-forth discussion with the respondent regarding her non-payment. The respondent promised to pay her salary without success. The respondent appointed her permanent with effect from 01 October 2023, without been paid salary for the period 18 July 2023 to 30 September 2023. Second witness: Mr. Ntea William Lemeko
9. The witness testified under oath that the respondent employed him as a principal at Boase Primary School. The applicant was the educator at the school from the 18th of July 2023. The applicant was appointed as a substitute educator because the person who occupied that position was on a sick leave. He requested the respondent permission to fill the position with the substitute educator, and an approval was granted on 23 June 2023, as per “A1”.
10. The applicant was appointed after they got an approval to fill the position. He requested the respondent to extend the applicant’s contract from 01 to 30 September 2023. The applicant was appointed permanent with effect from 01 October 2023, without been paid her salary for the period 18 July 2023 to 30 September 2023. He made several pay query without success.
11. Under clarity questions, he stated that he got approval for the substitute appointment, and they appointed the applicant. The school governing made a recommendation to the respondent for the appointment of the applicant as per “A4”. The learners were not taught from February 2023 to June 2023, and they struggled to get an educator teaching Isixhosa. THE RESPONDENT’S EVIDENCE
12. The respondent did not attend the proceeding; therefore, no evidence was led on behalf of the respondent. Analysis of evidence and argument

Introduction

13. Clause 69(6) of the Council Dispute Resolution Procedures states that 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 the Basic Conditions of Employment Act; the Employment of Educators Act; the Personnel Administration Measures (PAM); or any regulations or subordinate legislation promulgated by the Minister of Basic Education or MEC for Education in a respective Province where an educator is employed as it relates to conditions of service, a collective agreement and a contract of employment.
14. The applicant has referred the dispute in terms of Clause 69(6) of the Council Dispute Resolution Procedures. In support of her case, she submitted approval for the substitute appointment of an educator as per “A1”. The testimony of the applicant was consistent, and there were no contradictions in what she said.
15. On the other hand, the respondent failed to attend the proceeding to prove that the amount claimed was paid, or that it was not owed to the applicant. Section 31(1)(c) of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act requires an employer to keep records containing amongst other things, remuneration paid to each employee. In the absence of any proof that the monies claimed were paid or are not owed. I find that the respondent owes the applicant the amount claimed. Conclusion
16. In the absence of any proof that the monies claimed were paid, or are not owed, I find that the respondent owes the applicant the amount claimed. Relief
17. The applicant sought payment for the period 18 July 2023 to 30 September 2023. The total amount to be paid by the respondent to the applicant is R91 241, 01, and is divided as follows: (R26 554, 00, per month / 4.33 = R6 132, 56, per week / 40 hours per week = R153, 31, per hour. 8 hours per day x 11 days (18-31 July 2023) = 88 hours’ x R153, 31, per hour = R13 491, 28. (R26 554, 00, per month x 2 months (01 August 2023 to 30 September 2023) = R53 108, 00). 37% in lieu of benefits are calculated as follows: R13 491, 28 (18-31 July 2023) x 37% = R4 991, 77.
    R53 108, 00 (01 August 2023 to 30 September 2023) x 37% = R19 649, 96.

Award

18. The respondent, Department of Education – Free State, owes the applicant, Ms. Cikizwa Perseverence Mpeta, an outstanding salary including 37% in lieu of benefits, for the period 18 July 2023 to 30 September 2023.
19. The respondent, Department of Education – Free State, is ordered to pay the applicant the total amount of R91 241, 01, this being her outstanding salary including 37% in lieu of benefits, and which must be paid into the applicant’s bank account, the details of which are known to the respondent, by no later than 31 October 2025.

Signature:
Commissioner: Khuduga Tlale
Sector: Education