ARBITRATION AWARD

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN: ELRC270-26/27LP

JUNIOR MATSUTLA TJATJI APPLICANT

And

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF LIMPOPO RESPONDENT

1. DETAILS OF THE HEARING AND REPRESENTATION

1.1. The arbitration hearing into an alleged Unfair Labour Practice, referred to in terms of section 186(2) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995, as amended was heard and finalized on 30 July 2026.
1.2. Both parties attended the proceedings. The respondent was represented by N.E Nyathela, while the applicant was represented by Ben Pudyane, union official from SADTU.
1.3. The hearing was held in English and was digitally recorded.

2. ISSUES TO BE DECIDED

2.1. Whether or not the decision of the respondent not to approve the applicant’s application for special study leave was substantively fair.
2.2. If the non-approval of the special study leave was substantively unfair, I must determine appropriate relief in terms of section 193 of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995, as amended.

3. BACKGROUND TO THE ISSUES

3.1. The applicant applied for study leave for three days, 03, 04 and 05 April 2024, and it was declined (unpaid leave) and during April 2026, an amount of R3390.83 was deducted from his salary.
3.2. Prior to the commencement of the proceedings, the applicant submitted bundle of documents marked “A”, while the respondent submitted a bundle of documents marked “R”.
3.3. The applicant closed her case after leading his own evidence, while the respondent closed its case after leading the evidence of one witness.
3.4. Both parties submitted written closing arguments on the agreed date and time.

4. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS

4.1. The following is a summary of only relevant evidence submitted by both parties and which was considered to arrive at a decision in the matter.

5. THE APPLICANT’S CASE

5.1. The applicant, Junior Matsutla Tjatji, testified that during April 2024, he applied for a study leave for three days, 03, 04 and 05 April 2024. On 11 April 2024, the then school principal approved the study leave with full pay on behalf of the Department’s HOD. On 12 April 2026, an amount of R3390.83 was deducted from his salary. After enquiring with the HR Department about the deduction on 12 April 2026, they forwarded him a screen shot of a letter requesting him to submit proof in support of his absence. The said letter was signed and dated 13 May 2025. He never received the letter requesting him to submit supporting documents within (5) five working days of receipt. When he first applied for the study leave, he attached all the supporting documents. On 13 April 2026, he forwarded all the supporting documents to the Department, but they were never processed. The Department is in position of his contact details, and the alleged letter was supposed to have been forwarded directly to him.
5.2. Under cross-examination applicant testified that the leave form was completed and signed after coming back from the study leave. The then school principal gave him permission to leave the school without completing and signing the leave form. The study leave was for research support writing retreat and not for writing examination. The letter from the University of Limpopo inviting him to the writing retreat was also attached to the leave application form. Since the respondent is in position of his proof of registration, it was not necessary for him to attach it. The letter from the University was addressed to the then school principal. The alleged letter requesting him to submit supporting documents was supposed to have been received by him because by then he was the school principal. He is fully aware that the leave application form should be completed and signed before going on leave.

6. THE RESPONDENT’S CASE

6.1. The respondent’s only witness was Kedibone Sonwane. She testified that the applicant’s leave application form was received without supporting documents. A letter requesting the supporting documents was sent to the applicant via the circuit office. The applicant was supposed to have submitted the supporting documents within (5) five working days of receipt of the letter. The only document attached to the employee’s leave application was an email addressed to supervisors. The respondent do not communicate directly with educators, but it does so via their circuit offices. As the school principal, the applicant was supposed to have collected the letter from the circuit office. The expected documents to be submitted by the applicant were proof of registration and timetable. The applicant never submitted proof of registration to the respondent.
6.2. Under cross-examination, the respondent’s witness testified that all communications are not communicated directly to the educators but via their circuit offices. All School principals are expected to collect mails/communications from the circuit at least once per week. As the school principal, it was the responsibility of the applicant to have collected the letter at the circuit office. The letter address to the school principal from the University of Limpopo was not going to be accepted as proof of registration. The applicant’s leave application form was approved without the official having supporting documents before him/her and he/she could not have been aware of the respondent’s policy regarding study leave.

8. ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS

8.1. In this matter, the onus was on the applicant to prove on balance of probabilities that the decision of the respondent not to approve his special study leave was substantively unfair.
8.2. The Personnel Administrative Measures (PAM) provides that special leave may be granted to an educator for an approved course of study and for a period approved by the employer, on conditions as approved by the employer, including leave with full or partial pay or without pay.
8.3. It is the applicant’s disputed evidence that when the application was initially submitted, all the supporting documents were attached to the application. The applicant further alleged that when the school principal signed the leave application form on 11 April 2024, he/she was presented with all the required supporting documents. However, the then school principal was never called to come and testify in support of his claim. To only allege that the supporting documents were submitted without any supporting evidence, is not enough. On the other hand, the respondent’s version that the supporting documents were not attached to the leave application form, was convincing. The respondent’s witness was very convincing and appeared not to have been coached to deprive the applicant of his entitlement. The fact that the then school principal allowed the applicant to resume his leave without following the proper procedure of completing the leaving application form before resuming his leave, support the respondent’s version that he/she might have approved the leave without supporting documents because he/she was probable not familiar with the respondent’s leave policy.
8.4. It is the respondent’s undisputed evidence that the letter requesting the applicant to submit the supporting documents was received by the circuit on 20 May 2025, and that as the school principal, the applicant was required to collect mail/communication from the circuit at least once a week. The applicant failed to rebut the respondent’s version or submit evidence that he had collected mail during that period. Failure by the applicant to collect mail from the circuit immediately after 20 May 2025, has resulted in him not complying with the set time frame. The respondent has tried to reach out to the applicant before implementing leave without pay.
8.5. In the circumstances, I conclude that the applicant has failed to convincingly prove on balance of probabilities that the decision not to approve his special study leave was substantively unfair.

AWARD
9.1. The applicant’s application is dismissed.

ELRC COMMISSSIONER: NICHOLUS SONO
DATE: 13 August 2026