I agree with my colleague however I will follow a different route namely:

The onus of proof:

The onus will only rest upon you to proof that you where actually dismissed, thereafter the company needs to proof that you were in fact dismissed in accordance with a fair process.

Remember that you need to proof the balance probability and not beyond reasonable doubt.

But what is the difference then?

Basically balance of probabilities means it is more likely one way than the other. The judge sums up all the evidence for a claim and all the evidence against a claim and which ever one comes out ahead wins. It does not matter by how much the winning argument wins. Also, generally where this rule is being applied, the burden of proof is lower. Circumstantial evidence is often permitted, and witness testimony is the main form of evidence. This standard is generally used to decide civil matters where monetary compensation is provided for damages. The rationale being that it would not be practical to pay detectives, lawyers and police to sort out matters of less than a few thousand rand, but without their professional training, it would be hard to meet the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. Since most people could afford the loss of a couple of thousand rands in an erroneous judgment, some of the burden of proof is sacrificed in order to resolve the complaint in an economical and timely fashion.

Beyond reasonable doubt means that if any rational person were presented with the evidence, the person would have trouble identifying any credible reason to believe the defendant is innocent. Any doubt of the defendant's guilt is not based on fact, but rather opinion, emotion or irrationality. Evidence which proves only the possibility that the defendant is guilty is generally not permitted, because it introduces doubt. The idea is generally that if we put someone in prison, we don't want it to be based on something that could have happened some other way than because the defendant committed the crime he or she is accused of. This level of proof is generally used in criminal trials, where no adequate monetary remedy is available. The violation of the law is so severe that only imprisonment would be deemed sufficient to punish the defendant. This standard is applied to criminal cases because the potential penalties are quite harsh and we don't want to accidentally use them against someone who is innocent.

In your case:

The balance of probability does not favour the argument from the employer that you will seek and pay legal fees and advice for a matter that is thump sucked,

The balance of probability does not favour the argument that you will approach the bargaining council with this matter whereas it could reasonably be expected of you to be at work.

My colleague is spot on this is an extremely common phenomenon and therefore case law is well founded.

Remember that the employer must now proof that reasonable every employer will automatically respond to a letter that claims that you are dismissed if you are not dismissed.

It could reasonably be expected of an employee to take drastic disciplinary steps against you for breaking the trust relationship by your actions.

What will make your case crystal clear without a shadow of a doubt will be the fact that the employer only inquired into your whereabouts a MONTH after your dismissal it is certainly not reasonable actions from an employer to wait a month before demanding your return.

On your personnel file your address and other personal details will reflect why did the employer wait a month to correspond with you other than to cover their tracks – this onus of proof is not yours put those of the employer.

 Unauthorized Deductions and victimization

No employer may deduct any finances from you at any given stage that is not agreed upon, placed in writing and signed by both parties FULL STOP.

The employer may However; deduct monies as prescribed by law and ordered by a court of law.

The fact that they did this goes to show how they operate and will be evident in your case (should you decided to move forward)

Your warning is mere a eye blind to get away with their actions as my colleague already pointed out to you.

My suggestion to you is to put everything on paper and produce it to your employer and to demand that they respond to you on paper.

Even though you withdrew the matter from the council it can still be re-opened believe me I have done this on numerous of occasions.

This is despicable actions from your employer and must certainly not be left at ease.