View Categories

22 May 2025 – ELRC822-24/25NC

Commissioner: Simon Beesnaar
Date of Award: 18 May 2025

In the ARBITRATION between

PSA obo FR. Yman
(Union/Applicant)

And

Northern Cape Department of Education
(Respondent)

Union/Applicant’s representative: Mr Eugene Louw – PSA (Union Rep)
Union/Applicant’s address:

Telephone: 076 289 2849
Telefax:
E-mail: eugene.louw@psa.co.za

Respondent’s representative: Ms. Lulama Tutani-Jara (Senior LR Officer)
Respondent’s address:

Telephone: 081 847 2501
Telefax:
E-mail: lulamatj@gmail.com

DETAILS OF THE HEARING AND REPRESENTATION

  1. This is the award in the arbitration between PSA on behalf of Fazel Yman, the applicant and the Northern Cape Department of Education, the respondent.
  2. The referral is in terms of section 186(2)(a) of the Labour Relations Act, 66 of 1995 as amended (herein referred to as “the LRA”) and the award is issued in terms of section 138(7) of the LRA.
  3. The arbitration was held at the respondent’s premises in Upington, on 7 May 2025.
  4. The applicant appeared in person and he was represented by Mr. Eugene Louw from PSA (Union Rep). The respondent was represented by Ms. Lulama Tutani-Jara in her capacity as Senior Labour Relations Officer.
  5. The parties submitted in to evidence bundles of documents which were accepted as they purported to be. The applicant’s bundle is referred herein after as Annexure “A1-34, while the respondent’s bundle is Annexure “B1-34” and “C1-3”.
  6. The proceedings were conducted in English and were manually and digitally recorded.
    ISSUE TO BE DECIDED
  7. It must be determined whether the respondent committed unfair labour practice relating to a benefit, after the applicant’s Temporary Incapacity leave was declined. His salary for the month of March 2024 was frozen and as a result he lost his medical aid benefit from Government Employees Medical Scheme (GEMS).
  8. Furthermore it was submitted that the applicant is on chronic medication and due to ill-health, he has to be seen by a Psychologist on regular basis at own costs.

BACKGROUND TO THE DISPUTE

  1. The applicant started in 2007 as an Educator, Post level 1 to date. He is earning R 441 483.00 per annum. He applied for Temporary Incapacity Leave (TIL) on 27 March 2024 after he suffered some injuries at work. As a result of the injuries sustained, he is on chronic medication and has to see the Psychologist on regular basis.
  2. The TIL was for 1 January 2024 to 31 December 2024. He only became aware that his application was declined on 14 October 2024, seven (7) months later.
  3. He also received a letter from the respondent ordering him to pay an amount equal to R 222 385.18 that he disputed. He lodged a grievance that could not resolve the matter. The union (PSA) referred a dispute on his behalf for conciliation which was scheduled on 9 December 2024.
  4. Conciliation failed to resolve the dispute and the union requested that the matter be resolved through arbitration. The relief sought by the applicant is compensation for unfair conduct on the part of the respondent.

SURVEY OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT
Applicant’s evidence –

  1. Mr Yman works at AJ. Fereira High School in Upington. He is a Post level 1 Educator since 2007 to date. He lodged grievance after he was served with a letter of demand by the respondent (see A14). That was after the respondent declined his application for TIL. It was alleged that he did not have enough leave credits and unpaid leave was implemented. As a result he was indebted to the respondent the sum of R 222 385.18 that could not be explained (see B5).
  2. He applied for TIL on 27 March 2024 and did not get feedback from the respondent within the prescribed 30 days as per the Policy and Procedure on Incapacity Leave and Ill-health Retirement (PILIR). He was notified only on 14 October 2024, after seven (7) months that his application was declined.
  3. He was informed about that by the School Principal while he was at home due to ill-health. He immediately came to the school. He was issued with a letter to acknowledge debt as per B5. He then submitted a new application for TIL on 15 October 2024 with some additional information so that his application must be approved. He made a follow up with HR and they confirmed receipt of his application.
  4. A20 was the letter from the respondent for the period 15 January 2024 to 13 December 2024. He maintained that it was not the true reflection of the application he made on 27 March 2024. While the content of the letter indicated that his application was done on 22 March 2024, he did not agree.
  5. His salary for March 2024 was frozen while he was on sick leave. He made an enquiry with the HR and spoke to Ms. Scheepers. He was reassured that once his TIL gets approved, his salary would be reinstated / reactivated. His salary was only paid on 11 April 2024, for the month of March 2024 (A24). There were no deductions made towards GEMS for the month of March 2024. He was advised by HR to approach GEMS not to stop his medical aid benefits which he did, and that the respondent would sort that out with the next salary run. Two deductions would be made to that effect and for the March 2024 contribution but that did not happen. .
  6. He was then advised to approach their finance department but no one could assist him in that regard. When he approached GEMS again he was told there were no contributions made and his membership was terminated effective from April 2024. His benefits were cancelled with effect from February 2024. He had to pay his medical contribution out of his pocket which drained him financially and his health further deteriorated as a result.
  7. He is currently on chronic medication and had to see the Psychologist regularly. With that being the case, he could not access his medical aid benefit due to the respondent’s conduct. He had to re-apply for GEMS membership in May 2024 and that was finalised in September 2024. The first deductions were made on 31 October 2024 with a waiting period of three (3) months to get benefits back. He submitted that his current benefits were suspended for 12 months including his chronic benefits. In the meantime he had to pay in cash.

Respondent’s evidence –

  1. Ms. Lulama Tutani-Jara is the Senior Labour Relations Officer and represented the respondent. She submitted that her testimony would be based on the acknowledgement of debt letter as per B5. Further that the respondent could not be held to account for the termination of the medical benefit of the applicant by GEMS.
  2. The applicant’s salary was frozen. There were no contributions made towards his medical benefits in March 2024. She further maintained that the applicant was duty bound to ensure that he re-apply for GEMS as advised by Ms. Scheepers from HR. Ms Scheepers told him to approach GEMS to sort out his medical aid benefits after his salary was unfrozen. It was after his TIL was declined. It was his own responsibility to make arrangements with GEMS as advised by Ms. Scheepers.
  3. She maintained that the School Principal explained everything to him and why his TIL was declined. The implementation of unpaid leave was also explained by the School Principal. She concluded that they have no control over GEMS. Under cross examination she conceded that she was not at the school when the Principal explained the situation to the applicant and the discussions held between the applicant and Ms. Scheepers. Further that it was hearsay.
    .
    ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT
  4. This is a referral in terms of section 186 (2) (a) of the LRA. The relief sought by the applicant is that the respondent be ordered to compensate him for the unfairly conduct that resulted in him losing his medical aid benefit.
  5. In determining the dispute between the parties, I considered the provisions of the LRA, and other relevant prescripts and came to the finding hereafter.
  6. The LRA entitles employees to institute action against an employer for what is termed ‘unfair labour practice’ in terms of section 186 thereof. One of the matters where an employee is entitled to take action because of the unfair conduct of the employer is in relation to benefits. In Apollo Tyres SA (Pty) Ltd v CCMA & others (unreported case DA1/11 [2013] ZALAC) a benefit was said to be any advantage or privilege to which an employee was entitled or offered, in terms of an existing policy or practice, and which was granted at the employer’s discretion.
  7. It was further held that if the benefit is not a guaranteed contractual right per se, the employee could still claim the same on the basis of an unfair labour practice if the employee can show that the employee was unfairly deprived of the same. An example would be where an employer must exercise the discretion to decide if such benefit accrues to an employee and exercises such discretion unfairly (see Aucamp v SARS (JS 884/2011) [2013] ZALCJHB 266; [2014] 2 BLLR 152 (LC) ; (2014) 35 ILJ 1217 (CC) (handed down on 17 October 2013).
  8. The interpretation of a ‘benefit’ is much wider since the Apollo Tyres judgement. The law requires the employee to show the existence of the conduct or decision complained of. Therefore the onus rests with the employee.
  9. It is common cause that the applicant applied for TIL on 27 March 2024. It was only responded to on a letter dated 9 September 2024, in which his application was declined (see A20). The letter was brought to the applicant’s attention on 14 October 2024 by the School Principal, seven (7) months later.
  10. According to the Policy and Procedure on Incapacity Leave and Ill-health Retirement (PILIR), on the Assessment Process by the Health Risk Manager, “the employer must within 30 days after receipt of both the application form and medical certificate …. approve or refuse temporary incapacity leave”. There is no explanation as to why it took the respondent such a long time to respond to this application. Should they have responded quicker, I am of the view this kind of situation could have been averted.
  11. While the application for TIL was made on 27 March 2024, for the period 1 January 2024 to 31 December 2024, the response letter indicates different dates which cannot be explained when a decision not to approve the application was made. They referred to a period 15 January 2024 to 13 December 2024. It is not clear which documents or application was considered when the decision not to approve his application was taken.
  12. The respondent then took a decision to freeze his salary for the month of March 2024. Without a salary, there were no contributions made towards his medical aid cover while they knew or ought to have known that he was on chronic medication and on regular consultations with the Psychologist after he sustained injuries at work. His salary was only reinstated in April 2024 but no contributions were made for the month of March 2024 towards his medical aid cover.
  13. The applicant stated that he spoke to Ms. Scheepers at HR. He was promised that after his salary was reinstated or reactivated that the requisite contributions to GEMS would be made but that was not the case until his medical aid cover lapsed. This crucial piece of evidence remained unchallenged.
  14. The respondent’s representative submitted that they have no control over GEMS. I am of the view that it is essentially not about one entity’s control over the other. It is simply about the respondent making the necessary deductions from the applicant’s salary plus their contributions to GEMS towards his medical aid cover. Was it not because of their delayed response and freezing the applicant’s salary, he would not have lost his medical aid cover.
  15. GEMS was registered on 1 January 2005 specifically to meet the healthcare needs of government employees. That in my view is a benefit. This situation is the direct opposite of this objective. It was further held in Apollo Tyres judgement that “…..unfairness implies a failure to meet an objective standard and may be taken to include arbitrary, capricious or inconsistent conduct, whether negligent or intended”.
  16. Under normal circumstances, the deductions are made by the respondent from the applicant’s monthly salary. The applicant is in no position to pay himself a salary, in order to make the necessary deductions towards his medical aid. He could only ask GEMS not to suspend or terminate his medical benefits, but the deductions are made by the respondent. I find it unfair that after his salary was frozen he was left all by himself when this kind of situation was not his own creation, while he was still unfit for work.
  17. I observed that the respondent’s testimony was based on hearsay as was put to her during cross examination. That was her concession as well. Section 3(1)(c) of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act 45 of 1988 (LEAA) confers a discretion on a court (or tribunal) in terms of admitting hearsay evidence if, in the opinion of the court (or tribunal), as the case may be, it is in the interest of justice to admit such hearsay evidence.
  18. I considered the respondent’s testimony and evidence. Now that it is unsupported and unsubstantiated, I conclude that it carries less weight as she was warned when she decided to take a stand.
  19. Having regard to the full conspectus of all relevant facts and circumstances of the matter, I find that the applicant has established on a balance of probabilities that the conduct of the respondent in the circumstances is tantamount to unfair labour practice in terms of section 186(2)(a) of the LRA
  20. For the reasons stated above I make the award hereafter –

REMEDY

  1. The relief sought by the applicant is compensation for the unfair conduct on the part of the respondent. For the reasons stated above I find that the respondent acted unfairly towards the applicant. It follows therefore that the applicant is entitled to compensation in terms of the relief sought.
  2. In lieu of the respondent’s unfair conduct towards the applicant, I use my discretion and order that the applicant be paid compensation equal to three (3) months’ salary, calculated at R 441 483.00 / 12 = R 36 790.25 x 3 = R 110 370.75 (Hundred and ten thousand, three hundred and seventy rand seventy-five cents).

AWARD

  1. The respondent is herewith ordered to pay the applicant compensation equal to R 110 370.75 as stated in paragraph 41 above on or before 30 May 2024.
  2. The compensation amount stated in paragraphs 41 and 42 supra must be paid by the respondent directly into the applicant’s bank account known to the respondent.
  3. If an arbitration award orders a party to pay a sum of money, the amount earns
    interest from the date of the award at the same rate as the rate prescribed from time to
    time in respect of a judgment debt in terms of section 2 of the Prescribed Rate of
    Interest Act, 1975 (Act No. 55 of 1975), unless the award provides otherwise.
Commissioner:Simon Beesnaar
Date of Award:18 May 2025

In the ARBITRATION between

PSA obo FR. Yman
(Union/Applicant)
 
  And
 
 
 
Northern Cape Department of Education
(Respondent)

Union/Applicant’s representative:Mr Eugene Louw – PSA (Union Rep)
Union/Applicant’s address: 
  
  
  
Telephone:076 289 2849
Telefax: 
E-mail:eugene.louw@psa.co.za
  
Respondent’s representative:Ms. Lulama Tutani-Jara (Senior LR Officer)
Respondent’s address: 
  
  
  
Telephone:081 847 2501
Telefax: 
E-mail:lulamatj@gmail.com  

DETAILS OF THE HEARING AND REPRESENTATION

  1. This is the award in the arbitration between PSA on behalf of Fazel Yman, the applicant and the Northern Cape Department of Education, the respondent.
  1. The referral is in terms of section 186(2)(a) of the Labour Relations Act, 66 of 1995 as amended (herein referred to as “the LRA”) and the award is issued in terms of section 138(7) of the LRA.
  1. The arbitration was held at the respondent’s premises in Upington, on 7 May 2025.
  1. The applicant appeared in person and he was represented by Mr. Eugene Louw from PSA (Union Rep). The respondent was represented by Ms. Lulama Tutani-Jara in her capacity as Senior Labour Relations Officer.
  1. The parties submitted in to evidence bundles of documents which were accepted as they purported to be. The applicant’s bundle is referred herein after as Annexure “A1-34, while the respondent’s bundle is Annexure “B1-34” and “C1-3”. 
  1. The proceedings were conducted in English and were manually and digitally recorded.

ISSUE TO BE DECIDED

  1. It must be determined whether the respondent committed unfair labour practice relating to a benefit, after the applicant’s Temporary Incapacity leave was declined. His salary for the month of March 2024 was frozen and as a result he lost his medical aid benefit from Government Employees Medical Scheme (GEMS).
  1. Furthermore it was submitted that the applicant is on chronic medication and due to ill-health, he has to be seen by a Psychologist on regular basis at own costs.

BACKGROUND TO THE DISPUTE

  1. The applicant started in 2007 as an Educator, Post level 1 to date. He is earning R 441 483.00 per annum. He applied for Temporary Incapacity Leave (TIL) on 27 March 2024 after he suffered some injuries at work. As a result of the injuries sustained, he is on chronic medication and has to see the Psychologist on regular basis.
  1. The TIL was for 1 January 2024 to 31 December 2024. He only became aware that his application was declined on 14 October 2024, seven (7) months later.
  1. He also received a letter from the respondent ordering him to pay an amount equal to R 222 385.18 that he disputed. He lodged a grievance that could not resolve the matter. The union (PSA) referred a dispute on his behalf for conciliation which was scheduled on 9 December 2024.
  1. Conciliation failed to resolve the dispute and the union requested that the matter be resolved through arbitration. The relief sought by the applicant is compensation for unfair conduct on the part of the respondent.

SURVEY OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT

Applicant’s evidence –

  1. Mr Yman works at AJ. Fereira High School in Upington. He is a Post level 1 Educator since 2007 to date. He lodged grievance after he was served with a letter of demand by the respondent (see A14). That was after the respondent declined his application for TIL. It was alleged that he did not have enough leave credits and unpaid leave was implemented. As a result he was indebted to the respondent the sum of R 222 385.18 that could not be explained (see B5).
  1. He applied for TIL on 27 March 2024 and did not get feedback from the respondent within the prescribed 30 days as per the Policy and Procedure on Incapacity Leave and Ill-health Retirement (PILIR). He was notified only on 14 October 2024, after seven (7) months that his application was declined.
  1. He was informed about that by the School Principal while he was at home due to ill-health. He immediately came to the school. He was issued with a letter to acknowledge debt as per B5. He then submitted a new application for TIL on 15 October 2024 with some additional information so that his application must be approved. He made a follow up with HR and they confirmed receipt of his application.
  1. A20 was the letter from the respondent for the period 15 January 2024 to 13 December 2024. He maintained that it was not the true reflection of the application he made on 27 March 2024. While the content of the letter indicated that his application was done on 22 March 2024, he did not agree.
  1. His salary for March 2024 was frozen while he was on sick leave. He made an enquiry with the HR and spoke to Ms. Scheepers. He was reassured that once his TIL gets approved, his salary would be reinstated / reactivated. His salary was only paid on 11 April 2024, for the month of March 2024 (A24). There were no deductions made towards GEMS for the month of March 2024. He was advised by HR to approach GEMS not to stop his medical aid benefits which he did, and that the respondent would sort that out with the next salary run. Two deductions would be made to that effect and for the March 2024 contribution but that did not happen. .
  1.  He was then advised to approach their finance department but no one could assist him in that regard. When he approached GEMS again he was told there were no contributions made and his membership was terminated effective from April 2024. His benefits were cancelled with effect from February 2024. He had to pay his medical contribution out of his pocket which drained him financially and his health further deteriorated as a result.
  1. He is currently on chronic medication and had to see the Psychologist regularly. With that being the case, he could not access his medical aid benefit due to the respondent’s conduct. He had to re-apply for GEMS membership in May 2024 and that was finalised in September 2024. The first deductions were made on 31 October 2024 with a waiting period of three (3) months to get benefits back. He submitted that his current benefits were suspended for 12 months including his chronic benefits. In the meantime he had to pay in cash.  

Respondent’s evidence –

  1. Ms. Lulama Tutani-Jara is the Senior Labour Relations Officer and represented the respondent. She submitted that her testimony would be based on the acknowledgement of debt letter as per B5. Further that the respondent could not be held to account for the termination of the medical benefit of the applicant by GEMS.
  1. The applicant’s salary was frozen. There were no contributions made towards his medical benefits in March 2024. She further maintained that the applicant was duty bound to ensure that he re-apply for GEMS as advised by Ms. Scheepers from HR. Ms Scheepers told him to approach GEMS to sort out his medical aid benefits after his salary was unfrozen. It was after his TIL was declined. It was his own responsibility to make arrangements with GEMS as advised by Ms. Scheepers.
  1. She maintained that the School Principal explained everything to him and why his TIL was declined. The implementation of unpaid leave was also explained by the School Principal.  She concluded that they have no control over GEMS. Under cross examination she conceded that she was not at the school when the Principal explained the situation to the applicant and the discussions held between the applicant and Ms. Scheepers. Further that it was hearsay.  

.

ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT

  1. This is a referral in terms of section 186 (2) (a) of the LRA. The relief sought by the applicant is that the respondent be ordered to compensate him for the unfairly conduct that resulted in him losing his medical aid benefit.
  1. In determining the dispute between the parties, I considered the provisions of the LRA, and other relevant prescripts and came to the finding hereafter.
  1. The LRA entitles employees to institute action against an employer for what is termed ‘unfair labour practice’ in terms of section 186 thereof. One of the matters where an employee is entitled to take action because of the unfair conduct of the employer is in relation to benefits. In Apollo Tyres SA (Pty) Ltd v CCMA & others (unreported case DA1/11 [2013] ZALAC) a benefit was said to be any advantage or privilege to which an employee was entitled or offered, in terms of an existing policy or practice, and which was granted at the employer’s discretion.
  1. It was further held that if the benefit is not a guaranteed contractual right per se, the employee could still claim the same on the basis of an unfair labour practice if the employee can show that the employee was unfairly deprived of the same. An example would be where an employer must exercise the discretion to decide if such benefit accrues to an employee and exercises such discretion unfairly (see Aucamp v SARS (JS 884/2011) [2013] ZALCJHB 266; [2014] 2 BLLR 152 (LC) ; (2014) 35 ILJ 1217 (CC) (handed down on 17 October 2013).   
  1. The interpretation of a ‘benefit’ is much wider since the Apollo Tyres judgement. The law requires the employee to show the existence of the conduct or decision complained of. Therefore the onus rests with the employee.
  1. It is common cause that the applicant applied for TIL on 27 March 2024. It was only responded to on a letter dated 9 September 2024, in which his application was declined (see A20). The letter was brought to the applicant’s attention on 14 October 2024 by the School Principal, seven (7) months later.
  1. According to the Policy and Procedure on Incapacity Leave and Ill-health Retirement (PILIR), on the Assessment Process by the Health Risk Manager, “the employer must within 30 days after receipt of both the application form and medical certificate …. approve or refuse temporary incapacity leave”. There is no explanation as to why it took the respondent such a long time to respond to this application. Should they have responded quicker, I am of the view this kind of situation could have been averted.  
  1. While the application for TIL was made on 27 March 2024, for the period 1 January 2024 to 31 December 2024, the response letter indicates different dates which cannot be explained when a decision not to approve the application was made. They referred to a period 15 January 2024 to 13 December 2024. It is not clear which documents or application was considered when the decision not to approve his application was taken. 
  1. The respondent then took a decision to freeze his salary for the month of March 2024. Without a salary, there were no contributions made towards his medical aid cover while they knew or ought to have known that he was on chronic medication and on regular consultations with the Psychologist after he sustained injuries at work. His salary was only reinstated in April 2024 but no contributions were made for the month of March 2024 towards his medical aid cover.
  1. The applicant stated that he spoke to Ms. Scheepers at HR. He was promised that after his salary was reinstated or reactivated that the requisite contributions to GEMS would be made but that was not the case until his medical aid cover lapsed. This crucial piece of evidence remained unchallenged.
  1. The respondent’s representative submitted that they have no control over GEMS. I am of the view that it is essentially not about one entity’s control over the other. It is simply about the respondent making the necessary deductions from the applicant’s salary plus their contributions to GEMS towards his medical aid cover.  Was it not because of their delayed response and freezing the applicant’s salary, he would not have lost his medical aid cover.
  1. GEMS was registered on 1 January 2005 specifically to meet the healthcare needs of government employees. That in my view is a benefit. This situation is the direct opposite of this objective. It was further held in Apollo Tyres judgement that “…..unfairness implies a failure to meet an objective standard and may be taken to include arbitrary, capricious or inconsistent conduct, whether negligent or intended”.
  1. Under normal circumstances, the deductions are made by the respondent from the applicant’s monthly salary. The applicant is in no position to pay himself a salary, in order to make the necessary deductions towards his medical aid. He could only ask GEMS not to suspend or terminate his medical benefits, but the deductions are made by the respondent. I find it unfair that after his salary was frozen he was left all by himself when this kind of situation was not his own creation, while he was still unfit for work.
  1. I observed that the respondent’s testimony was based on hearsay as was put to her during cross examination. That was her concession as well. Section 3(1)(c) of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act 45 of 1988 (LEAA) confers a discretion on a court (or tribunal) in terms of admitting hearsay evidence if, in the opinion of the court (or tribunal), as the case may be, it is in the interest of justice to admit such hearsay evidence.
  1. I considered the respondent’s testimony and evidence. Now that it is unsupported and unsubstantiated, I conclude that it carries less weight as she was warned when she decided to take a stand.   
  1. Having regard to the full conspectus of all relevant facts and circumstances of the matter, I find that the applicant has established on a balance of probabilities that the conduct of the respondent in the circumstances is tantamount to unfair labour practice in terms of section 186(2)(a) of the LRA
  1. For the reasons stated above I make the award hereafter – 

REMEDY

  1. The relief sought by the applicant is compensation for the unfair conduct on the part of the respondent. For the reasons stated above I find that the respondent acted unfairly towards the applicant. It follows therefore that the applicant is entitled to compensation in terms of the relief sought.
  1. In lieu of the respondent’s unfair conduct towards the applicant, I use my discretion and order that the applicant be paid compensation equal to three (3) months’ salary, calculated at R 441 483.00 / 12 = R 36 790.25 x 3 = R 110 370.75 (Hundred and ten thousand, three hundred and seventy rand seventy-five cents).   

AWARD

  1. The respondent is herewith ordered to pay the applicant compensation equal to R 110 370.75 as stated in paragraph 41 above on or before 30 May 2024.
  1. The compensation amount stated in paragraphs 41 and 42 supra must be paid by the respondent directly into the applicant’s bank account known to the respondent.
  1. If an arbitration award orders a party to pay a sum of money, the amount earns
    interest from the date of the award at the same rate as the rate prescribed from time to
    time in respect of a judgment debt in terms of section 2 of the Prescribed Rate of
    Interest Act, 1975 (Act No. 55 of 1975), unless the award provides otherwise.

         

          Name: SM. Beesnaar

          (ELRC) Arbitrator