Cartrack’s emergency response and engagement with the bereaved family following the tragic death of an employee have attracted significant public attention, offering valuable insights into crisis management and stakeholder communication during times of tragedy.

The recent death of a Cartrack employee at the company’s Rosebank offices has generated widespread media coverage, public scrutiny, and responses from organised labour, political organisations, and regulatory bodies. While investigations into the circumstances surrounding the incident remain ongoing, the manner in which the company has responded provides important considerations for employers when managing workplace tragedies and reputational crises.

Media reports widely publicised the incident, with headlines highlighting allegations regarding workplace practices and employee wellbeing. The matter has since prompted calls for investigations into workplace health and safety, sick leave management, disciplinary practices, and emergency response procedures.

On 6 June 2026, Gcina Dhladhla, a 29-year-old call centre employee, tragically passed away after suffering a medical emergency at Cartrack’s offices in Rosebank, Johannesburg.

According to allegations made by family members and trade unions, Ms Dhladhla had reportedly been unwell prior to the incident and may have felt compelled to attend work despite her condition. It has further been alleged that she had previously been subjected to disciplinary action relating to absenteeism despite submitting a medical certificate.

Trade unions and advocacy groups have expressed concerns regarding employee wellbeing, workplace culture, and employer obligations relating to sick leave and duty of care. These allegations have led to calls for a comprehensive investigation by the Department of Employment and Labour and other authorities.

The Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) stated that the allegations raise important questions regarding workplace health and safety, the treatment of ill employees, and employers’ legal obligations to safeguard employee wellbeing.

Political organisations, including the ANC Youth League and the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), have also called for accountability and further investigation. In addition, former employees have publicly shared accounts of what they describe as challenging workplace conditions within the organisation’s call centre operations.

Cartrack’s Response

Cartrack has strongly disputed the allegations and maintains that the company acted appropriately and responsibly throughout the incident.

In an official statement, the company explained that Ms Dhladhla arrived at work without any apparent indication of ill health and later reported feeling dizzy and nauseous. According to the company, once the seriousness of the situation became apparent, trained on-site first responders immediately rendered assistance while emergency medical services were summoned.

Cartrack further stated that its emergency response team was equipped with an Automated External Defibrillator (AED) and that all reasonable measures were taken to provide assistance.

The company also rejected allegations relating to the denial of sick leave, stating that Ms Dhladhla had previously utilised sick leave and that a medical certificate submitted during the week preceding the incident had been accepted.

Cartrack indicated that Ms Dhladhla had also disclosed certain personal challenges unrelated to the workplace, which were reportedly handled sensitively and confidentially by management.

The company confirmed that a formal investigation is underway and that it is fully cooperating with law enforcement authorities and the Department of Employment and Labour.

Importantly, Cartrack stated that it made immediate contact with the family following the incident and has remained in ongoing communication through the family’s designated representatives.

Joint Statement Demonstrates Constructive Engagement

On 11 June 2026, Cartrack and representatives of the Dhladhla family released a joint statement following a meeting between the parties.

The statement reflected a constructive and respectful engagement aimed at establishing facts, sharing information, and supporting the family’s healing process.

Family representative Thamsanqa Mbuli thanked Cartrack management for their openness and cooperation, noting that the meeting provided an opportunity to obtain clarity regarding the sequence of events leading to Ms Dhladhla’s passing.

Similarly, members of the family expressed appreciation for the opportunity to engage directly with the company and acknowledged that the discussions had contributed positively to their search for answers.

Cartrack CEO Joshua Victor reiterated the company’s commitment to supporting the family, cooperating fully with all investigations, and ensuring that the facts are established through the appropriate legal and regulatory processes.

In a notable gesture of goodwill and shared humanity, the family extended an invitation to Ms Dhladhla’s managers and colleagues to attend her funeral and celebrate her life alongside them.

Both the family and Cartrack have urged the public to allow the investigative processes to proceed without speculation or premature conclusions, emphasising the importance of an objective, evidence-based determination of the facts.

Key Lessons for Employers

Regardless of the eventual findings of the ongoing investigations, the incident serves as a powerful reminder of the importance of:

  • Maintaining legally compliant sick leave and attendance management practices.
  • Ensuring employees never feel pressured to choose between their health and their employment.
  • Training managers to respond appropriately and compassionately when employees report illness or distress.
  • Having clear and effective emergency response procedures in place.
  • Conducting regular assessments of workplace culture and psychosocial risks.
  • Communicating transparently and empathetically with affected families and stakeholders during times of crisis.
  • Cooperating fully with regulatory authorities and independent investigations.

At the heart of this tragedy is the loss of a young employee whose family, colleagues, and loved ones continue to grieve. As investigations continue, employers across South Africa may draw important lessons regarding workplace wellbeing, legal compliance, crisis management, and the critical importance of preserving trust during times of uncertainty.

A Stern Warning to Employers

Employers who fail to take their legal obligations towards employee health, safety, and wellbeing seriously do so at considerable risk.

The consequences of non-compliance extend far beyond a labour dispute or regulatory fine. Where an employer’s negligence contributes to the injury or death of an employee, the matter may escalate into criminal proceedings. Under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA), employers and responsible individuals may face prosecution, substantial fines, and even imprisonment. In serious cases, investigations can progress to culpable homicide charges.

The financial implications can be equally devastating. Families of affected employees may institute civil claims for damages where an employer’s actions or omissions contributed to the harm suffered. Such claims can amount to millions of rands and may expose businesses to significant financial liability.

From a labour law perspective, employers who discipline, threaten, or dismiss employees for exercising their lawful rights — including taking legitimate sick leave or raising safety concerns — expose themselves to severe sanctions. The Labour Court and CCMA may award compensation of up to 24 months’ remuneration for automatically unfair dismissals, in addition to reinstatement orders and other remedies.

The reputational damage can be even more difficult to recover from. In today’s digital environment, workplace incidents can become national news within hours. Public outrage, media scrutiny, trade union intervention, and social media commentary can cause lasting damage to a company’s reputation, customer confidence, and employer brand. Once public trust is lost, rebuilding it can take years.

Employers must also remember that the Department of Employment and Labour has extensive enforcement powers. Labour inspectors may issue compliance orders, impose penalties, and, where circumstances warrant, halt operations until unsafe conditions are rectified. Non-compliance with labour legislation is not merely an administrative issue — in many instances, it constitutes a criminal offence.

The message to employers is clear: compliance is not optional. Every organisation has a legal and moral duty to protect the health, safety, dignity, and wellbeing of its employees. The cost of implementing compliant policies, training managers, and fostering a healthy workplace culture is insignificant when compared to the legal, financial, and human consequences of failing to do so.

No employee should ever feel compelled to choose between their health and their livelihood. When employers lose sight of this principle, the consequences can be catastrophic.

Note: The allegations referred to in this article have been denied by Cartrack. Investigations by the relevant authorities remain ongoing, and no findings have yet been made regarding the cause of the incident or any potential legal liability.

References, relevant legislation and sources: Basic Conditions of Employment Act 75 of 1997 | Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 | Occupational Health and Safety Act 85 of 1993 | Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998 | Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 | Code of Good Practice: Handling of Sexual Harassment Cases in the Workplace | SAFTU Statement, June 2026 | Drum / News24 Report, 8 June 2026 | EWN Report, 9 June 2026.

For questions or advise, please contact the Cofesa national helpline:

(t): 011 679 4373

(c): 082 888 9516

(e): helpline@cofesa.co.za

Disclaimer: The information and material published on this website is provided for general purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. We make every effort to ensure that the content is updated regularly and to offer the most current and accurate information. Readers are advised to always consult with a Labour Law Practitioner before acting on the information. We accept no responsibility for any loss or damage, whether direct or consequential, which may arise from reliance on the information contained in these pages.