A SECONDARY school teacher has lost a labour dispute after challenging salary deductions imposed for three days of absence from work.
Image: Karen Sandison/ Independent Newspapers.
A SECONDARY school teacher has lost a labour dispute after challenging salary deductions imposed for three days of absence from work.
The Education Labour Relations Council (ELRC) dismissed the claim brought by educator Samuel Sandile Bontsa against the Western Cape Education Department.
The dispute centred on whether the department acted unfairly when it deducted Bontsa’s salary for three days in July and August 2025 when he failed to report for duty.
Bontsa, a post level 1 educator at Intsebenziswano Senior Secondary School, was absent from work on July 28, 2025, and August 4–5 ,2025. It was undisputed that he did not notify the school principal or management about his absence.
The department treated the absences as unpaid leave and deducted the corresponding amount from his salary in November 2025. Bontsa subsequently referred a dispute to the ELRC, claiming the deduction was unfair and seeking reimbursement.
During the arbitration hearing held virtually in February 2026, Bontsa represented himself and explained that he could not contact the school because he had lost his phone.
He testified that the device contained all his contact numbers and email addresses, leaving him unable to inform the principal that he was unable to report for duty. He further said he suffers from rheumatoid arthritis, which caused swelling and pain in his legs during the days in question. He also claimed that he did not have the opportunity to go to a clinic or visit a doctor.
However, under cross-examination, Bontsa confirmed that he had lost the phone on June 19, 2025, more than a month before the absences. He also acknowledged that he did not obtain alternative contact details for the school during that time.
Meanwhile, acting principal Themba Zitazi testified that staff members were repeatedly reminded during meetings that they must notify the principal before 07:30 if they would not be reporting for duty. This was necessary to arrange relief timetables to ensure learners were not left unattended.
He also stated that Bontsa had a history of failing to notify the school about his absences and had previously been personally reminded of the rule.
Zitazi further testified that when Bontsa returned to work after the absences, he did not submit a leave application or provide a medical certificate.
Presiding over the matter, Arbitrator Arthi Singh-Bhoopchand found that Bontsa's explanation for failing to notify the school was insufficient.
Singh-Bhoopchand noted that education regulations require educators to inform their supervisors immediately if they cannot report for duty and to submit a leave application. Because Bontsa failed to do so, his absence was considered unauthorised.
The ruling emphasised that schools are specialised environments responsible for the care of learners, making timely communication about absences essential.
The award further found that the deductions were lawful under the Basic Conditions of Employment Act, which allows salary deductions when permitted by law or collective agreement.
The arbitrator concluded that the department acted within its authority by treating the absences as unpaid leave.
“The deductions are therefore lawful and fair,” the award stated.
Bontsa’s claim for reimbursement was dismissed.