Bulelwa Mzalazala v The Eastern Cape Department of Arts, Sports and Culture

The applicant was an employee of the respondent (Eastern Cape Department of Arts, Sports and Culture) for ten years. During 2024, she applied for temporary incapacity leave for two periods (26 March to 28 June 2024, and 1 July to 30 September 2024), but both applications were declined for lack of compliance with required supporting medical information. Her normal sick leave had been exhausted. The respondent followed procedures under the Policy and Procedure on Incapacity Leave and Ill-health Retirement. After each declined application, the respondent notified the applicant that she had five working days to elect whether the unapproved leave should be allocated as unpaid leave or annual leave, or it would be converted to unpaid leave. The applicant lodged grievances which were unsuccessful. On 9 December 2024, she was informed that 30 days would be deducted from annual leave and 98 days treated as leave without pay, to be deducted from her salary monthly commencing January 2025. Her gross monthly salary was R42,245.30 and net salary R27,405.31. R6,651.08 was deducted from her January 2025 salary and two amounts of R6,651.08 were deducted from her February 2025 salary. The applicant referred a dispute to the General Public Service Bargaining Council and sought an interdict preventing further deductions.

• Whether the respondent complied with section 34 of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act 75 of 1997 (BCEA) in making deductions from the applicant's salary
• Whether the matter was urgent
• Whether the court should stay deductions pending the outcome of proceedings before the Bargaining Council
• Whether deductions exceeded the statutory limit of one-quarter of remuneration as provided in section 34(2)(d) of the BCEA

1. Pending the finalisation of the dispute between the applicant and the respondent in the General Public Service Sector Bargaining Council under reference number GPBC174/2025, and in further appropriate fora, the respondent is interdicted from making any further deductions from the applicant's remuneration in relation to such dispute. 2. After the dispute is finalised, either party may re-enrol the application on notice. 3. The costs of the application are reserved.

Where an employer is making deductions from an employee's salary and there is a pending dispute before the appropriate labour tribunal regarding the substantive issue underlying those deductions, a court may grant an interdict staying further deductions pending the outcome of the labour dispute, particularly where: (1) the matter is urgent due to ongoing financial harm; (2) the core complaint is inextricably linked to the deductions; and (3) a decision on the procedural correctness of deductions might conflict with the outcome of proceedings in the specialized forum. The court should avoid deciding issues that might prejudice either party or conflict with determinations to be made by the Bargaining Council or other appropriate labour fora.

The court observed that if the applicant were successful in the Bargaining Council or further fora, the question of deductions for unpaid leave would fall away entirely. If she were partially successful, the total amount of deductions would be adjusted accordingly. The court noted that the February deduction appeared to exceed one quarter of the applicant's remuneration, which would be in violation of section 34(2)(d) of the BCEA, though this was not definitively determined. The court also observed that the applicant's complaint about non-compliance with section 34 of the BCEA still left open the respondent's right to make deductions, but that a decision on this right was pending before the appropriate forum.

This case is significant for employment law in South Africa as it demonstrates the court's approach to protecting employees from ongoing salary deductions pending resolution of labour disputes. It illustrates the court's willingness to grant urgent interim relief in circumstances of continuing financial harm, even where the underlying substantive dispute must be resolved in a different forum (the Bargaining Council). The case reinforces the protective provisions of section 34 of the BCEA and the importance of procedural fairness in making deductions from employees' remuneration. It also illustrates the principle that courts should avoid making decisions that might conflict with or pre-empt determinations by specialized labour tribunals, preferring instead to preserve the status quo pending resolution of the underlying dispute.