View Categories

30 January 2026 – ELRC291-25/26FS

Case Number: ELRC291-25/26FS
Commissioner: SM. Beesnaar
Date of Award: 19 January 2026

In the ARBITRATION between

SADTU obo Thibakgoane, Moithumi
(Union/Applicant)

and

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION – FS
(Respondent)

Union/Applicant’s representative: Mr. Mbuyiselo Frans – SADTU (Union Rep)
Union/Applicant’s address:

Telephone: 072 468 4135
Telefax:
E-mail: mfrans@sadtu.org.za

Respondent’s representative: Mr. Vuyisile Gubuza – Manager: Labour Relations
Respondent’s address: Department of Education – FS Province

BLOEMFONTEIN

Telephone: 079 8984433
Telefax:
E-mail: v.gubuza@fseducation.gov.za

PARTICULARS OF THE HEARING AND REPRESENTATION

  1. This is the award in the arbitration matter between SADTU on behalf of Thibakgoane, Moithumi, the applicant and the Department of Education – Free State Provincial Administration, the respondent.
  2. The dispute relates to non-payment of salary after the imposition of a suspension without a salary as a disciplinary sanction and the award is issued in terms of section 138(7) of the Labour Relations Act, 66 of 1995 as amended (herein referred to as “the LRA”).
  3. The arbitration hearing was scheduled on 25 November 2025 and the hearing was conducted virtual platform.
  4. The applicant appeared in person and she was represented by Mr Mbuyiselo Frans SADTU (Union Rep). The respondent was represented by Mr. Vuyisile Gubuza, in his capacity as Manager – Labour Relations.
  5. The parties prepared and submitted into evidence bundles of documents which were accepted as what they purported to be. The applicant’s bundle is referred herein after as Annexures “A1-4” while the respondent’s bundle is Annexures “B1-13”.
  6. The proceedings were conducted in English and were manually and digitally recorded.

ISSUES TO BE DECIDED

  1. It must be determined whether the applicant’s salary was wrongfully docked by the respondent as a disciplinary measure pending the appeal outcome. It was alleged that an amount equal to R 36 441.25 was not paid with her June and July 2025 salary.
  2. Further that the respondent should be ordered to reimburse the applicant equal to the same amount.

BACKGROUND TO THE DISPUTE

  1. The applicant has seven (7) years of service as an Educator, Post level 1. She earns R 38 939.75 per month (see A1-4). Following disciplinary action, she was given a sanction of one (1) suspension without pay.
  2. The disciplinary enquiry was held on 7 March 2025 and the 1 month suspension without a salary pronounced on 26 May 2025. The Union submitted an appeal on behalf of the applicant on 30 May 2025.
  3. While the appeal outcome on the suspension without pay for 1 month remained pending, the applicant’s June 2025 salary was docked, an amount equal to R 25 190.42. Another amount of R 11 250.83 was deducted in her July 2025 salary.
  4. There was a reversal on the amounts that was deducted from her salary following the Respondent’s letter as per Annexure “B1” dated 3 July 2025. On 24 July 2025 amount of R 25 144.46 was reversed (see A2). After the reversal no other amount was deducted from her salary.
  5. The Union referred the dispute to the Council for conciliation for non-payment of salary after the suspension without pay for 1 month was imposed while the appeal outcome remained pending. Conciliation was scheduled on 31 August 2025 and failed to resolve the impasse.
  6. Finally, should I find in favour of the applicant, the respondent be ordered to reimburse her the full amount wrongfully deducted as a disciplinary sanction. Further that the respondent be ordered to carry the costs of tax deductible.

SUMMARY EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT

Applicant’s evidence –

  1. Ms. Moithumi Caroline Thibakgoane stated that she did not get a salary advise to show that there was a reversal of the amount deducted from her salary as a result of the disciplinary sanction. Nonetheless, she conceded that an amount equal to R 25 144. 46 was paid back.
  2. She maintained that two amounts were deducted from her salary. The first amount of R 25 190.42 was docked from her June 2025 salary. The second amount of R 11 250.83 was done in July 2025. The total amount equals to R 36 441.25. She felt that the respondent owed her outstanding salary to the amount of R 11 296.79.
  3. She intimated that due to the respondent’s conduct she suffered lot of prejudice because she could not pay her accounts/debts and her children’s study fees. She maintained that the respondent unjustly imposed the sanction prematurely while the appeal was still pending. The amount reversed was just a portion of what was deducted or not paid with her June and July 2025 salary.

Respondent’s evidence –

  1. Mr. Vuyisile Gubuza is the Manager – Labour Relations. He submitted that the applicant was charged for misconduct and the outcome was one (1) month’s suspension without a salary. Further that the hearing was on 7 March 2025. He maintained that the sanction was acknowledged on 26 May 2025 to take effect on 1 June 2025.
  2. He stated further that the applicant lodged an appeal on 30 May 2025 and conceded that there could have been an error on the part of the respondent to implement the disciplinary sanction before the appeal was finalised. He maintained that at the time of the incident, the applicant’s basic earning was R 36 441.25 (see B2) and her gross was at R 38 705.25.
  3. Further that her gross was made up of her basic salary plus Home owner’s allowance. As a result of the disciplinary sanction, only her basic salary was affected. Two amounts were deducted from her salary, that was R 25 190.42 and R 11 250.83. A total sum of R 36 441.25 was docked from her salary as a disciplinary sanction.
  4. He maintained that while the applicant was reimbursed with R 25 144.46, the other amount equal to R 11 000.00 could have gone for tax. Based on that he submitted that the amount of R 11 250.83 alleged to be owed to the applicant is sheer speculation, and that there was nothing owed to o her. He further submitted that other amount could be deduction towards her pension.
  5. Under cross examination, he conceded that after realising that the sanction was imposed while the appeal process was not finalised, he wrote a letter to reverse the deductions imposed by the implementation of the sanction (see B1).

ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT

  1. The dispute relates to wrongful implementation of the disciplinary sanction, pending the finalisation of the appeal process. It is common cause that the applicant was charged for misconduct, and a disciplinary sanction of 1 month’s suspension without pay meted out on 26 May 2025.
  2. The disciplinary sanction was appealed on 30 May 2025. While the appeal outcome was pending, the respondent regardless, proceeded with the implementation of the sanction. Aggrieved by the premature implementation of the sanction after her salary was docked twice, the Union (SADTU) referred the dispute on her behalf of non-payment of salary to the Council around June 2025, after they became aware of the respondent’s unfair conduct.
  3. The records show that two amounts were docked from the applicant’s salary as per the disciplinary sanction. The first amount equal to R 25 190.42 reflected as unpaid on her 20 June 2025 salary. The other amount equal to R 11 250.83 was unpaid as per her July 2025 salary. The respondent conceded that was an oversight on their part after the disciplinary sanction was implemented while the appeal process was not finalised yet.
  4. It is not in dispute that the sanction was implemented prematurely while the appeal outcome was still pending. Hence the reversal by the respondent of the sanction and the unpaid salary. That is evident through the letter penned by the respondent dated 3 July 2025 (see B1:

REVERSAL OF IMPLEMENTATION: MS MC THIBAKGOANE).

  1. The respondent’s B3 reflects Disallowance – 1 Month-Suspension with the amount equal R 25 190.42. B5 also reflects the same pattern, Disallowance – 1 Month – Suspension and the amount R 11 250.83. The two amounts added together makes up the applicant’s basic salary reflecting on her 20 June 2025 salary advice (A3).
  2. It is common cause that following the reversal letter referred to in paragraph 26 above, the applicant received R 25 144.46 as a salary. That was also confirmed by the applicant in her own testimony (see A2). The other amount equal to R 11 250.83 could not be accounted for other than the respondent’s submission that it could have been taken up by tax and her pension contribution. That’s speculative in my view.
  3. The applicant’s contention is that her tax deduction plus pension contributions are way below that amount alleged by the respondent. I had an opportunity to peruse the applicant’s salary advice for 20 August 2025, on her tax and pension deductions. The two amounts are indeed way below the R 11 250.83.
  4. While there was a letter to reverse the sanction and the non-payment of the applicant’s salary due to the premature implementation of the sanction, it is evident that only one portion of the deduction was reversed. There is no evidence that the second amount equal to R 11 250.83 was reversed as submitted by the applicant. I am therefore of the view that the applicant is entitled to that amount until the appeal process is finalised. I further agree with the applicant that the sanction was unjustly implemented and the amount reversed is just but a portion of the total sum of R 36 441.25 docked on her salary.
  5. On the issue submitted by the Union that the respondent should be ordered to carry the tax burden on behalf of the applicant, I am of the view that the Council is not competent to determine tax owing on the amount to be awarded. This is an issue for SARS to determine (see Penny v 600 SA Holdings (Pty) Ltd (2003) 24 ILJ 967 (LC)).
  6. Having regard to the full conspectus of all relevant facts and circumstances of the matter, I make the award hereafter –

REMEDY

  1. The relief sought by the Union on behalf of the applicant is that the respondent be ordered to pay her outstanding salary due to the premature implementation of the disciplinary sanction pending the finalisation of the appeal process.
  2. Under the circumstances, I find it fair and just to award the applicant the relief sought after she proved that the respondent failed to pay the other portion of her salary following the reversal letter dated 3 July 2025.

AWARD

  1. The respondent, Department of Education – Free State Provincial Administration, is ordered to pay the applicant, Moithumi Caroline Thibakgoane her outstanding salary equal to R 11 250.83 (Eleven thousand, two hundred and fifty rand, eighty three cents).
  2. The respondent must pay the amount stated in paragraph 35 above, directly into the applicant’s bank account known to the respondent on or before, 30 January 2026.
  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.

Name: SM. Beesnaar
(ELRC) Arbitrator