The death of 29-year-old Gcina Dhladhla at Cartrack’s Rosebank offices has ignited public outcry and raised serious questions about workplace sick leave policies, after her family alleged she was repeatedly denied time off despite submitting medical certificates advising rest.
According to the Dhladhla family, Gcina had fallen ill in the days leading up to her collapse and submitted two doctors’ notes recommending she stay home. They allege her requests for sick leave were denied, and she was expected to continue reporting for duty until she collapsed at work over the weekend. Her sister recounted being contacted by a colleague who said Gcina was unwell and had been taken to the office toilet. When asked whether management had called an ambulance, the colleague said no, prompting the sister to call emergency services herself while en route to the office. Upon arrival, she was told that on-site first aiders had attempted to revive Gcina, but it was too late. The family also stated that management could not provide a reference number for the ambulance service.
In response, Cartrack has firmly rejected the family’s allegations. The company stated that Dhladhla arrived at work on 6 June showing no visible signs of illness and did not request sick leave or ask to leave prior to becoming unwell. Cartrack described the medical emergency as “sudden and unexpected,” denied that any sick leave requests were refused, and affirmed that on-site first responders provided immediate assistance while awaiting paramedics. The company confirmed that a police case has been opened to investigate the circumstances surrounding her death.
The Department of Labour has since conducted inspections at Cartrack’s Rosebank offices as part of its statutory investigation into the incident. Officials stated that findings will be communicated once the process is concluded. As the family prepares for Gcina’s funeral, they have vowed to pursue justice and accountability.
Amid the tragedy, labour law expert Galeboe Modisapodi provided clarity on employee rights under South African law. Modisapodi explained that the Basic Conditions of Employment Act, particularly sections 22 and 26, protects employees who submit valid medical certificates. “Employees are entitled to 30 days of sick leave in a three-year cycle,” Modisapodi said. “While an employer may request proof of illness after two consecutive days of absence, there is no legal basis to deny sick leave to an employee who is within their cycle and has no history of abuse.”
Modisapodi further noted that employees who feel unwell should notify their immediate supervisor—or ask a colleague to convey the message—and provide medical proof upon return. “It cannot be presumed that an employee has absconded simply because they notified their superior and promised to submit documentation later,” Modisapodi added.
On legal protections, Modisapodi highlighted that the Labour Relations Act classifies dismissal based on sickness or health-related absence as automatically unfair. The Employment Equity Act prohibits unfair discrimination based on medical conditions, and the Basic Conditions of Employment Act shields employees from victimisation for exercising their right to sick leave. “Sick leave is a right to be exercised when needed, not a bankable entitlement like annual leave,” Modisapodi clarified.
Addressing workplace procedures, Modisapodi advised that most employers with 50 or more staff maintain formal protocols for managing sudden illness, including coordination with emergency health services. Employers are also legally required to display summaries of key labour legislation on notice boards, and employees may request full copies of company policies to understand both their rights and responsibilities.
Modisapodi acknowledged that labour inspectors cannot monitor every workplace simultaneously. “The framework relies on health and safety representatives and employees to report violations,” Modisapodi said. “When non-compliance is reported, inspectors can and do intervene proactively.”
Offering guidance to both parties, Modisapodi stressed the importance of mutual understanding of rights and obligations. “HR policies should reflect a company’s values and how employees are treated,” Modisapodi said. “If an employer questions the validity of a medical certificate—for instance, if the practitioner is not registered with relevant authorities—there must be a lawful basis, and the matter should be addressed through open engagement with the employee or their representatives.”
As investigations continue, the case has intensified broader conversations about employee well-being, the enforcement of labour protections, and the duty of care employers owe to their staff. The Dhladhla family remains determined to seek answers, while Cartrack maintains its position that all appropriate procedures were followed. The Department of Labour’s forthcoming findings are expected to provide further clarity on the events leading to this tragic loss.
