IN THE EDUCATION LABOUR RELATIONS COUNCIL HELD AT POLOKWANE
Case No. ELRC938-24/25LP
In the matter between
MAHANDANA LUVHENGO SANDIE Applicant
And
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION – LIMPOPO Respondent
ARBITRATION AWARD
Details of hearing and representation
1. This award is rendered in accordance with the provisions of Section 138 (7) of the Labour Relations Act, 66 of 1995 as amended (the Act). The hearings took place at the Department of Education, Polokwane, Limpopo Province on 17 February and 19 May 2025 at 09:00AM. The applicant, Mahandana Luvhengo Sandie was represented by Ramango Patricia from South African Democratic Teachers Union (SADTU), while the respondent, Department of Education- Limpopo was represented by Rasebotsa Nthabisheng, one of its officials. The proceedings were digitally voice recorded and conducted in English.The parties agreed to use common bundles of documents I markedas Bundles R and T.
Issues to be decided.
2. The nature of the dispute was about the deduction of a total amount of R4 611.04 from the applicant’s salaries for April and May 2024. I must decide whether the deduction of a total amount of R4 611.04 from the applicant’s salaries for April and May 2024 was fair or not. To determine an appropriate relief, if it is found not to be fair.
Background to the dispute
3. The applicant is employed by the respondent at Kgakwa Secondary School. She is employed as a CS1 educator, earning a salary of R29 706.00 per month. The dispute arises at Phala Secondary School. She applied for family responsibility leave for 29 January 2024. The leave was recommended by the principal of Phala Secondary School and approved by an official from the circuit or district offices.
4. The applicant again took urgent private matter leave from 31 January to 01 February 2024 (2 days). The leave was recommended and approved.
5. The applicant also took another urgent private matter leave for 16 February 2024. The leave has no indication whether it was recommended or not as well as either approved or not.
6. She again took urgent private matter leave for 20 March 2024 which again it was not indicated if it was recommended or approved.
7. There was a total deduction of R4 611. 04 from the applicant’s salaries for April and May 2024.
SURVEY OF EVIDENCE
Applicant’s case.
One witness, the applicant herself, testified. Luvhengo Sandie Mahandana testified under oath and in English that:
8. She worked at Phala Secondary School for one year, ten months. She applied for cross transfer to Kgakwa Secondary School. She decided to move her kids to Polokwane. She applied for the admission of the kids in Polokwane in January 2024. The principal, Solo Elsie advised her to apply for urgent private matters from 29 to 31 January 2024 (2 days) because family responsibility leave days were exhausted (page 2 of Bundle T). There was no reason for her to doubt the principal as a representative of the respondent when she was advised to take urgent private matters leave.
9. She took the leave on 16 February 2024 to register her kids with the school as it was the date on which her kids got space (page 11 of Bundle T).
10. The 20th of March 2024 was the date she took another leave to collect her daughter’s report and talk to the head teacher about the behaviour of her daughter (page 5 of Bundle T).
11. The respondent deducted money for four days without consulting her. Nobody communicated with her that she took the wrong leaves. All the leaves she took were recommended by the principal and approved at the circuit. The approvals were correct, and the respondent should not have docked her salary.
12. She went to the principal after her salary was docked and she (principal) told her that the respondent should not have docked her salary since she (principal) had approved the leave.
13. During the cross examination, she testified that all the leaves were stamped (pages 2, 5, 8, and 11 of Bundle T). She saw the stamps as an approval. She heard about PAM in April 2024 after her salaries were docked. It was not correct for the respondent to dock her salary because it has recommended and approved her leaves. Educators apply urgent private matters leave in terms of paragraph H.11.6 of PAM (page 25 of Bundle R). All the leave she took for such activities were urgent and the respondent treated them as such by recommending and approving them. She had a recovery plan for the five days she was not at school/absent.
Respondent’s case.
One witness testified for the respondent. Lawrance Chipa testified under oath and in English that:
14. He was the corporate deputy director of the respondent. He was responsible amongst other things for appointments and all conditions of service. The applicant submitted leaves through the circuit to them. Their role was to check if the leaves were in line with what they were applied for. The applicant’s leave forms were referred as family responsibility leave while the attachments were the letters from the other school stating that the applicant was held up with certain activities at that school. He advised the leave capturer that the attachments were not supporting the leaves taken and as such the leaves must be made leave without pay.
15. Page 2 of Bundle T was the leave form, 31 January to 01 February 2024 for urgent private matters in respect of the applicant. It was signed by the applicant on 05 February 2024 and the principal recommended it on 06 February 2024.
Page 3 of Bundle T was the letter from the other school the applicant visited. The attachments (letter) were not in line with the urgent private matters leave. The urgent private matters leave is taken when there are unforeseen circumstances like when a geyser burst or a tyre puncture on your way to work and you are unable to reach there (workplace).
16. Page 5 of Bundle T was the leave form for 20 March 2024 which was signed by the applicant and recommended by the principal on 03 April 2024.
17. Pages 8-9 of Bundle T was the leave form for 29 January 2024 (family responsibility leave). The principal recommended it on 06 February 2024. The leave was classified as leave without pay because the attachment was not in line with the family responsibility leave. Family responsibility leave is taken in cases where a spouse or child passed away or are sick. There was communication with the applicant before leave without pay was implemented, but the applicant did not cooperate. The leave without pay was implemented to avoid audit query.
18. During cross-examination, he testified that the person must be informed before a leave without pay is implemented. There was no provision in the leave directive directing them to dock salary if a wrong type of leave was taken. They checked the accrued leave days of the applicant and there was nothing. The leaves were not returned to the principal because there was nothing wrong with them, only the attachments. There was no list of urgent private matters. The ticks and signatures mean leaves were approved. Where there were no ticks, the person who signed needed them to determine or take decision.
Analysis of the evidence and arguments
19. The applicant is required to prove on the balance of probabilities that the deduction of a total amount of R4 611.04 from her salaries by the respondent was unfair. The applicant took leave of absence (leaves) on 29 January 2024 (family responsibility), two days from 31 January to 01 February 2024 (urgent private matters), 16 February 2024 (urgent private matters), and 20 March 2024 (urgent private matters). It is common cause that the leaves on 29 January 2024 and from 31 January to 01 February 2024 were recommended and approved as leave with full pay. The leaves on 16 February and 20 March 2024 were not indicated whether they were recommended and/or approved. However, the signatures of the officials who recommended and approved the other two leaves were appended. The respondent testified that these two leaves were not recommended and approved. However, the inference one could draw is that the leaves were also recommended and approved with full pay. The officials would have indicated in terms of ticks if their intentions were not to recommend and approve the leaves with full pay. I therefore believe that the leaves were recommended and approved with full pay as well. All the leaves were recommended and approved as leave with full pay by officials with authority, the principal and the official from the circuit offices. The respondent never disputed the signatures on all the leave forms.
20. Personnel Administrative Measures (PAM), paragraph H.11.6 states that “An institutional-based educator may, during a scheduled working period, be granted special leave to attend to an urgent private matter, the nature of which is such that it warrants such educator’s absence from work.” The applicant testified that the respondent has unilaterally implemented leave without pay in respect of all the leaves she took for family responsibility and urgent private matters. She went further to testify that the leaves were recommended and approved, hence docking of her salary was unfair. It was the argument of the applicant that she was advised by the principal to categorize the leaves as such.
21. The respondent’s testimony was that the leaves were changed to leave without pay because the attachments were not in line with the category of leave taken by the applicant. For the respondent to avoid audit query, the deputy director: corporate, Lawrance Chipa instructed his subordinates to change the leaves to leave without pay and implement the deductions during April and May 2024 salaries. According to his testimony he informed the applicant before the implementation of the deductions about these mismatches of the leave categories and the attachments, but she (applicant) did not cooperate. I believe on the evidence of the applicant that leave without pay deductions were effected without her knowledge because the last leave was on 20 March 2024 and the deductions were in April and May 2024. The respondent did not inform the applicant about the mismatch before changing leaves to leaves without pay.
22. The respondent testified during the cross-examination that it was not necessary for the respondent to refer the leaves back to the principal because there was nothing wrong with them (leaves), but only the attachments which were not in line with the leaves. This testimony is misleading. The attachments were part of the leaves. If the attachments and the leaves were not matching, then the whole leave is wrong. It is my belief that all those leaves should have been returned to the principal for the applicant to attach the correct documents or change the leave categories. The leaves were recommended and approved as leaves with full pay by the same employer who changed them to leaves without pay. The respondent contradicted itself.
23. In view of the above, it is my finding that the applicant has on the balance of probabilities proved that the deduction of the total amount of R4 611.04 from her salaries of April and May 2024 was unfair. The applicant is entitled to the relief she sought.
Award
24. I find that the deduction of the total amount of R4 611.04 from the applicant, Mahandana Luvhengo Sandie’s salaries of April and May 2024 by the respondent, Department of Education – Limpopo was unfair. 25. The respondent is hereby ordered to repay the applicant a total amount of R4 611.04 deducted from her salaries of April and May 2024. 26. The repayment must be effected during the applicant’s salary for August 2025, failing which it shall earn interest in terms of section 143 of the Act.
VICTOR MADULA
ELRC PANELIST