30 September 2025 -ELRC59-25/26GP

IN THE EDUCATION LABOUR RELATIONS COUNCIL HELD IN VIRTUALLY
CASE NO.: ELRC 59-25/26 GP
In the matter between:-

LETTAH GEGE NTULI APPLICANT
and

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION GP RESPONDENT
ARBITRATOR: MMAMAHLOLA GLORIA RABYANYANA
HEARD: 12 September 2025
CLOSING ARGUMENTS: 12 September 2025
DATE OF AWARD: 25 September 2025
SUMMARY: Unpaid Leave

ARBITRATION AWARD

DETAILS OF HEARING AND REPRESENTATION

A virtual arbitration was held on 12 September 2025. The applicant, Ms Lettah, Gege Ntuli, presented his case. Mr G. Mbonde represented the respondent. The proceedings were recorded digitally.
The parties verbally argued their case. The respondent‘s bundle is marked “R” and the applicant’s “A”
BACKGROUND TO THE ISSUE
The Applicant is a Level 1 educator. On 08 April 2024, she did not report for duty. She was paid a full salary in April 2024. The amount R1135.61 was deducted from her July 2024 salary, as a makeup for 08 April 2024. Pursuant to the deduction, she referred the dispute about the unlawful deduction to the Council for conciliation. A condonation application of the late referral of the dispute was granted. She requested the arbitration when the dispute failed to be resolved.
ISSUE TO BE DECIDED
I must decide whether the applicant is entitled to leave pay for 08 April 2024 when she was off duty. The applicant seeks reimbursement.

AGREED FACTORS

The parties agreed to the following factors as being the common course:-
5.1 The Applicant is a Level 1 educator.
5.2. The amount of R 1135,61 was deducted from her July 2025 salary for
08 April 2024, for which she was absent from work.

5.2 The applicant submitted the leave form without supporting documents to prove her whereabouts on 08 April 2024.

SURVEY OF WITNESSES AND ARGUMENT

Lettah Gege Ntuli testified she was arrested whilst at school on 05 April 2024 and detained until the afternoon of Monday, 08 April 2024. She was released without appearing in Court.
The supporting document was not required to be attached to the leave form. The principal forced her to fill out the leave form. She filled it under duress because she did not have to. She signed the leave form in blank, without classifying the type of leave. The principal is the one who classified the leave as unpaid on the form.
During cross-examination, she conceded that she signed the leave form. The day was within her 36 leave days and was not required to fill the leave form. They fill the pillar form when they have exhausted their leave days.
The supporting document is not required when she takes 1 day off. A pillar form requires a supporting document even for one day. On 8 April 2024, she was taken to court but did not appear because the prosecutor decided not to prosecute her.
The magistrate advised her to collect the supporting document on where she was on the day, from the Police station, as she did not appear in court. She did not go to the police station as directed because she did not trust the police. She believed it was a trap to persecute her.
The principal filled in the “unpaid leave” on the form after she had signed, as they did not know the type of leave.
Rose Meisie Mpho Ndala testified that she is the school’s principal. The employees are required to fill in the leave form when they fail to report for duty. The applicant filled out the leave form and signed. The applicant informed her that she attended court on 08 April 2024. When she refused to fill the leave form, the IDOS intervened. The proof that she attended court was required to support the leave.
During cross-examination, she denied inserting the dates of leave and “unpaid leave”. She stated that the applicant filled in the form and signed.

CLOSING ARGUMENTS

The applicant argued that she wants to be reimbursed. She could not have agreed to unpaid leave. The respondent argued that the applicant conceded that she signed the leave form. She filled in the unpaid leave and failed to submit a supporting document. She failed to prove her whereabouts on 08 April 2024 and is not entitled to payment. ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS
It is a common cause that the applicant was absent from duty on 08 April 2024. The principal’s unchallenged evidence is that employees are required to complete leave forms when they are absent from duty.
The leave form that the applicant signed makes provision for all forms of leave for an employee to select the applicable leave, including annual leave. Therefore, it cannot be true that an employee who has annual leave days is not required to complete the leave form.
If that were the case, the employer would be unable to record and regulate the employees’ leave. Furthermore, it would defeat the employees’ accountability for their leave days and attendance for duty. The applicant’s version is improbable as it does not sound.
It was the applicant’s responsibility to complete the leave form regardless of the nature of the leave. Hence, the principal sought the intervention of the IDOS when the applicant refused to complete the leave form.
The applicant conceded to complete and sign the form. However, according to her, she did not specify the type of leave, and the principal filled it in as “unpaid leave”. Her version is inconceivable that she signed the form in blank. The principal denies filling in the form.
The applicant was responsible for specifying the type of leave. By signing the form, she was owning the contents of the form. I am persuaded that she opted for unpaid leave. This election for unpaid leave is supported by her failure to attach the supporting document. If she regarded it as paid leave, she would have specified and attached a supporting document for proof and motivation.
Her reasons for not collecting and attaching the supporting documents are unjustifiable. The reason the magistrate wanted to trap her to be persecuted by sending her to the police station to collect the document is baseless.
The respondent has proved on the balance of probabilities that the deduction was justifiable and lawful.
AWARD
I order that:
The deduction of R1135.61 from the applicant’s July 2024 salary is justifiable and lawful
The dispute is dismissed.