24 August 2026 -ELRC209-26/27NW

Case Number: ELRC209-26/27NW
Commissioner: Leanne Alexander
Date of Award: 24 August 2026

In the ARBITRATION between:
Mondli Majola
(Applicant)
And
Education Department of North West
(Respondent)

Details of hearing and representation

The arbitration took place on 17 August 2026 via virtual proceedings, making use of the Microsoft Teams (“MS Teams”) platform.
The Applicant, Mr Mondli Majola, was present at the proceedings and appeared in his own capacity.
Ms Ernestinah Boitumelo Phuswane, the Labour Relations Officer, represented the Respondent.
The proceedings were conducted in English.
The Applicant referred a dispute insofar as the non-payment of salary.
The matter, thereafter, was set down for arbitration proceedings on the above said date.
In terms of Section 138(7) of the “LRA” “within 14 days of the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings the commissioner must issue an arbitration award with brief reasons”.
The matter followed an inquisitorial approach.
The hearing was digitally recorded, and manual notes were also taken.
I must place on record that both parties agreed to submit their closing arguments via oral submissions. The submissions were duly considered.

The issue’s to be decided
11. I have to determine whether the Applicant was entitled to receive his outstanding salary.

The background to the dispute
12. It was common cause that the Applicant was employed as a Post Level 1 Educator (Platinum Village Primary School) since 15 February 2023.
13. The Applicant was discharged from the Respondent’s employ on 20 April 2026.
14. The Applicant worked 5 days per week, at an average of 8 hours per day.
15. The Applicant earned a monthly salary of R20, 000.00.
16. The Applicant sought his outstanding salary payment for May 2026 with equated to R20, 000.00.
17. The Applicant tendered a bundle of documents labelled as “A” and it was paginated accordingly; the Respondent tendered a bundle of documents labelled as “R” and it was paginated accordingly.
18. Since the dispute pertained to monies owing, the Applicant bore the onus and had the duty to begin.

Summary of evidence and argument
The testimony led by the witnesses is fully captured on the recording of the proceedings. What follows is a summary of the material and relevant issues I must determine.
Applicant’s case
Mr Mondli Majola
19. The Applicant testified under oath that he was employed as a Post Level 1 Educator at Platinum Village Primary School.
20. The essence of the witness testimony inter alia was that he escalated the matter to the Education Labour Relations Council (“ELRC”) as he was not remunerated for his May 2026 salary. However, subsequently he made peace with it.
21. He received a letter from Respondent during July 2026, which indicated that he was dismissed; he was shocked.
22. The Respondent was correct not to pay him, as they said that he had absconded, however, he did not hold any grudges towards the Respondent, as he made peace with it.
23. He forgot about the arbitration proceedings; it was only when the Commissioner contacted him that he remembered.
24. On 19 April 2026, a meeting was held with the Principal, Ms Dikeledi Nkele Sekapamotse, and they discussed several items regarding his work.
25. On 21 April 2026, he was not certain of the date, but he did not report for duty. He left, as the matter was brought to the Respondent’s attention.
26. On 29 April 2026, he returned to school and submitted a resignation letter (3 months’ notice) and handed it to the Receptionist. Subsequently, the Principal, Ms Dikeledi Nkele Sekapamotse, called him and had a chat with him, together with the Circuit Manager, Mr Passimula.
27. His last day at school was on 29 April 2026. At the beginning of May 2026, he left school and returned to his home in Kwa-Zulu Natal.
28. On 4/5 May 2026, his Therapist, whom he was consulting with, sent a letter to the Respondent and indicated that she was assisting him.
29. His Therapist informed him that the Respondent subsequently contacted her.
30. Despite sending the correspondence to the Respondent, he was not paid for May 2026.

During cross-examination it was put to the Applicant that he submitted during his evidence in chief, that he understood the reasons as to why he was not paid and the reasons why the Respondent issued him with a letter of discharge.
The Applicant conceded to this statement and submitted that despite the letter that he sent to the Respondent, the Respondent disregarded the contents therein; therefore, it made sense why the Respondent did not pay him.
The Applicant explained that a person could not be paid if they did not carry out their duties, a person could only be paid if they carried out their duties.
The Applicant explained that he resigned and provided the Respondent with 3-months’ notice, however, he was still an employee of the Respondent. He was expecting to receive a salary advance during May 2026, however, nothing was forthcoming from the Respondent.
It was put to the Applicant that he did not render any service from 21 April 2026.
The Applicant conceded to this statement.
The Applicant explained that he resigned and his notice period was from 30 April 2026 until 31 July 2026, and throughout this period he was expected to render service.
The Applicant explained that he did not render service, however, he submitted a letter and it highlighted the reason(s) regarding the therapeutic sessions that he was attending.
It was put to the Applicant that the letter that they received only indicated 4 (four) sessions, however, the other 26 (twenty-six) days he did not inform the Respondent regarding his whereabouts.
The Applicant disputed this statement and submitted that he reported his absence, as the correspondence was sent to the Respondent. Regarding the other days, he was not in a good state and in a position to resume his duties.
It was put to the Applicant that there was not a letter before her, wherein it indicated that he could not resume his duties.
The Applicant disputed this statement and submitted that he was not the author of the document (page 8 – Respondent’s bundle).
It was put to the Applicant that he did not report his absences outside from the days indicated in the letter that he provided to the Respondent.
The Applicant disputed this statement.
It was put to the Applicant that from 20 April 2026, until today, he never set foot at work; the letter only accounted for 3 (three) days.
The Applicant responded and submitted that he heard what she was saying.
It was put to the Applicant that considering the above, it was not wrong for the Respondent not to pay him, as he did not render service.
The Applicant disputed this statement.

Respondent’s case
Ms Dikeledi Nkele Sekopamotse
49. The witness testified under oath that she was the Principal (Platinum Village Primary School).
50. The essence of the witness testimony inter alia was that she was appointed as the Principal during November 2017. She has known the Applicant since 2023.
51. They received a letter from the Applicant (page 8 – Respondent’s bundle) on the 5/6 May 2026.
52. The Applicant did not report for duty since 20 April 2026.
53. Her understanding of the document (page 8 – Respondent’s bundle) was that the Applicant would attend therapy sessions on 12, 19 and 26 May 2026.
54. Other than the document (page 8 – Respondent’s bundle) she did not receive any documentation, nor a sick note from the Applicant, other than the Applicant’s resignation letter that she received on 30 April 2026.
55. During the discussion that she had with the Applicant on 30 April 2026, the Applicant indicated that he would be returning to work on the following day, however, that did not happen.
{The Applicant elected not to cross-examine the said witness}

Analysis of evidence and argument
56. ELRC Constitution (Part C) Dispute Resolution Procedures (Basic Education and TVET) 25 July 2023 provides that:
69.6 “Despite clause 69.5 and educator may refer a dispute to the ELRC concerning the failure to pay an amount owing to that employee in terms of the Basic Condition of Employment Act, the Employment of Educators Act, the Personal Administration Measures (PAM), or any other 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”.
57. It was the Applicant’s case that he was not paid his salary for May 2026. He maintained that he submitted a medical note from this therapist which outlined the reason(s) for his absence(s), therefore the Respondent was aware of his situation.
58. It was the Respondent’s case that the Applicant did not report for duty since 20 April 2026 to date; he did not render service and thus it was correct that he was not paid his salary for May 2026.
59. Since the dispute pertained to monies owing (outstanding salary payment) the Applicant bore the onus.
60. The Applicant on his own version conceded that the “Respondent was correct not to pay him, as they said that he had absconded”. Furthermore, during cross-examination the Applicant conceded that “a person could not be paid if they did not carry out their duties, a person could only be paid if they carried out their duties”.
61. It was common cause that the Applicant did not report for duty since 21 April 2026 to date.
62. It was common cause that the Applicant resigned on 30 April 2026 and provided the Respondent with a 3 (three) months’ notice period. The Applicant furthermore conceded during cross-examination that “he resigned and his notice period was from 30 April 2026

until 31 July 2026, and furthermore “during this period he was expected to render service throughout his notice period”.

It was furthermore common cause that the Respondent received the medical document from the Applicant’s therapist on 5 May 2026.
With the evidence before me, the medical document was not a medical certificate, it stated that it was a ‘professional confirmation letter’ as indicated in the document. It furthermore outlined that the Applicant would attend therapeutic sessions as follows:

‘The second session – 12 May 2026;
The third session – 19 May 2026 and
The fourth session – 26 May 2026’.

The ‘professional confirmation letter’ went further and indicated that ‘this letter is issued for professional confirmation purposes. Kindly extend your understanding and support as he focuses on his health and recovery’.
The Applicant did not render service from 21 April 2026 to date. Upon enquiring with the Applicant whether he had a medical certificate or any other document for the period of absence(s), however, nothing was forthcoming. Consequently, there was not a medical certificate before me to cover the periods in question from 21 April 2026, only a ‘personal confirmation letter’ highlighting 3 (three) therapeutic sessions.
An employee ought to be paid when their services are rendered and/or alternatively in the event where an employee is absent, a valid medical certificate or otherwise ought to account for the period of absence(s). In this instance, even if I were to accept the ‘professional confirmation letter’, which I reject, it only accounted for 4 (four) days for the entire period of absence and furthermore it did not indicate expressively the time period(s) when the therapy sessions would be held and/or alternatively whether the Applicant was fit or unfit for work throughout the said period.
I find it on the border line of bizarre to believe the Applicant’s version. The Applicant had the duty to discharge the onus and failed dismally in that regard. The Applicant did not report for duty since 21 April 2026 to date and did not have sufficient evidence to account for his absences to justify being paid his salary for May 2026.

Award