Commissioner, this is a case about an employer who dismissed a probationary employee for "absconding" – while simultaneously holding a paper trail that proves the exact opposite. The applicant will demonstrate, through documentary evidence alone, that this dismissal was both procedurally and substantively unfair in every material respect.

The facts, Commissioner, are these: Ms Scholtz was employed by Hout Bay International School in January 2024 at R31,000 per month on a probationary appointment. In September 2024, she became medically incapacitated. She did what any responsible employee would do – she applied for medical leave in writing, attached her medical certificate, and awaited a response. HBIS received that application. HBIS acknowledged it. And then HBIS, in a sequence of events we will trace document by document, proceeded to restrict her access, dismiss her, and classify her on the UIF declaration as having "absconded".

Commissioner, an absconded employee does not write emails. An absconded employee does not submit medical certificates. An absconded employee does not object in writing when their access is unlawfully revoked. Ms Scholtz did all three. The employer's own email trail – which HBIS generated and sent – destroys the abscondment narrative entirely.

On the substantive side, we will demonstrate that HBIS dismissed Ms Scholtz on probation grounds without producing a single KPI document, a single mentoring record, or a single Performance Improvement Plan. Schedule 8 of the Code of Good Practice imposes specific obligations on employers during probation. HBIS will not be able to produce one document showing it complied with any of them.

On the procedural side: there was no hearing. There was no notice of charges. There was no opportunity to respond. The dismissal letter simply arrived. That, Commissioner, is the textbook definition of procedural unfairness.

Finally, we submit that the employer's false UIF classification – filing a UI-19 declaring that Ms Scholtz absconded when the employer held six documents proving the contrary – caused him additional financial prejudice in the form of delayed UIF benefits, and reflects the bad faith with which this dismissal was conducted.

We will prove all of this from exhibits. We ask for compensation in the range of nine to twelve months, being R279,000 to R372,000, on the basis of the multiple procedural defects, the fatal contradictions in the employer's case, the consequential UIF prejudice, and the bad faith characterisation of this employee's legitimate medical absence.

Commissioner, we are ready to proceed.