A 29-year-old employee’s sudden passing at a corporate office in Rosebank has prompted renewed examination of sick leave protocols and employer obligations under South African labour law. Gcina Dhladhla, who worked at Cartrack’s Rosebank location, died at her workplace over the weekend, with her family raising concerns about how her prior health requests were managed.
Family representatives state that Dhladhla had experienced illness in the days before her collapse and submitted two medical certificates advising rest. They contend that despite providing this documentation, her applications for sick leave were not approved, and she continued to report to work until she became unwell on site. According to accounts shared by her sister, a colleague reached out to inform the family that Dhladhla was feeling ill and had been assisted to the office restroom. When questioned about whether emergency services had been contacted, the family says they were told no, leading the sister to call an ambulance while travelling to the location. Upon arrival, she was informed that workplace first aiders had attempted resuscitation efforts, but Dhladhla could not be revived. The family also noted that office management was unable to supply a reference number for the emergency response.
Cartrack has issued a statement contesting these claims. The company affirmed that Dhladhla arrived at work on 6 June displaying no observable signs of distress and made no formal request for sick leave or early departure before her condition deteriorated. Describing the incident as an unforeseen medical emergency, Cartrack denied any refusal of leave applications and confirmed that trained on-site personnel provided immediate support while awaiting paramedics. A police docket has been opened to examine the circumstances of her death, the company added.
In response to the incident, the Department of Labour carried out compliance inspections at Cartrack’s Rosebank premises. Officials indicated that the investigation is ongoing and that results will be shared publicly once finalized. Meanwhile, Dhladhla’s family is preparing for her funeral and has expressed commitment to pursuing accountability through appropriate channels.
Labour law specialist Galeboe Modisapodi weighed in on the broader legal framework governing employee health absences. Modisapodi noted that South Africa’s Basic Conditions of Employment Act—specifically sections 22 and 26—safeguards workers who present valid medical documentation. “Employees accrue 30 days of paid sick leave over a three-year cycle,” Modisapodi explained. “While employers may request a medical certificate after two consecutive days of absence, there is no statutory ground to refuse leave to an employee who is within their entitlement period and has not misused the benefit.”
On notification procedures, Modisapodi advised that staff who fall ill should inform their direct supervisor—or arrange for a coworker to relay the message—and submit proof of illness when returning to duty. “An absence communicated in good faith should be treated as sick leave pending verification,” Modisapodi said. “Assumptions of absenteeism without due process are not supported by law.”
Modisapodi also outlined key protections against retaliation. The Labour Relations Act, they noted, deems dismissal based on health-related absence as automatically unfair. Similarly, the Employment Equity Act prohibits discriminatory treatment tied to medical conditions, and the Basic Conditions of Employment Act forbids victimisation of employees who exercise their statutory leave rights. “Sick leave is a conditional right triggered by illness—not a pre-scheduled entitlement like annual leave,” Modisapodi clarified.
Regarding workplace readiness for health emergencies, Modisapodi observed that organisations employing 50 or more staff typically maintain formal protocols for managing acute illness, including partnerships with emergency medical providers. Employers are also required to display summaries of core labour legislation on workplace notice boards, and staff may request full policy documents to understand both entitlements and duties.
Addressing enforcement, Modisapodi acknowledged the practical limits of labour inspector coverage. “The system depends on health and safety representatives and employees to flag non-compliance,” Modisapodi said. “When credible reports are received, inspectors can and do conduct targeted visits.”
Offering guidance to both management and staff, Modisapodi emphasised mutual awareness of legal duties. “Company HR policies should embody organisational values and standards of care,” Modisapodi stated. “If an employer has grounds to question a medical certificate—for example, concerns about the practitioner’s registration status—this must be addressed through transparent dialogue with the employee or their designated representative, such as a shop steward or health and safety rep.”
As the investigation proceeds, the case has amplified discussions around workplace wellness, the practical application of labour protections, and employer duty of care. While Cartrack maintains that established procedures were followed, Dhladhla’s family continues to seek clarity and justice. The Department of Labour’s final report is anticipated to contribute further insight into the sequence of events surrounding this loss.