Discipline and Dismissal

Ivan Israelstam


In order to optimise the corrective effect of discipline it needs to be implemented as swiftly as possible. This does not mean that the disciplinary process must be carried out hastily. It does mean that, psychologically and legally, unnecessary delays must be avoided. Psychologically, the closer in time the corrective action/discipline is to the time the misconduct was perpetrated, the more effective the corrective action is likely to be.

This is because:

  • The time proximity between the two creates a direct and clear connection between the misconduct and the discipline in the mind of the transgressor.
  • This in turn assists the employee in learning and understanding that misconduct will result in a negative consequence.


From a legal point of view, discipline that is unnecessarily delayed can be found to be faulty.

That is, an unnecessary delay in bringing charges can result in the belief that:

  • the misconduct was not serious enough to merit discipline;
  • procedural time frames have been overstepped; or
  • the discipline was not truly instituted due to the alleged misconduct but rather due to the existence of a hidden agenda and the actual charge was a mere pretext.


In the case of Van Eyk v the Minister of Correctional Services (2005, 6 BLLR 639) the employee was charged with fraud almost two years after the fraudulent transactions allegedly took place. As the employer's disciplinary procedures appeared to require that charges be brought within three-and-a-half months of the employer's discovery of the alleged transgression, the court ruled that the disciplinary charges had fallen away.

In Duiker Mining LTD v CCMA and others (2003, 6 BLLR 550) the Labour Court agreed that the bringing of disciplinary charges should not be delayed unnecessarily. In Riekert v CCMA and others (2006, 4 BLLR 353) the employee was dismissed for gaining unauthorised access to management drawers.

The CCMA upheld the fairness of the dismissal. However, on review in the Labour Court, the employee contended that the employer had not followed proper procedures. The court agreed with the employee. It cited a number of procedural irregularities, including the fact that the employer had allowed an unreasonable and unnecessary time delay between the discovery of the alleged infraction and the laying of charges against the employee.

These cases, and a number of others, make it clear that in cases of disciplinary action, the institution of an investigation and the proffering of charges against the accused employee must not be delayed unnecessarily.  I stress once again that this does not mean that the employer must cut short its investigation for fear of breaking the rule requiring prompt disciplinary action, and in the process harm its chances of a successful outcome in the ensuing disciplinary hearing.

It means, in practice, that the employer should:

  • Begin the investigation into the alleged misconduct without delay once it has discovered the infraction. The sooner the investigation begins, the sooner it can be completed.
  • Ensure that the investigation is completed without any unnecessary delay but also without unnecessary haste.


That is, a balance between speed and thoroughness must be created. A thoroughly competent investigator must be assigned immediately. He/she must make the investigation a priority and attempt to prevent extraneous issues from delaying the progress of the investigation.

He/she must, on the one hand, turn over every stone in discovering the facts of the case but, on the other hand, must find ways of effectively managing the time spent on the investigation.

This should result in a large number of facts being discovered in as short a time as possible.

  • Decide, based on the findings of the investigation, whether there are grounds to hold a disciplinary hearing.
  • If such grounds exist, formulate the charges without delay and notify the employee thereof.

However, employers need to proceed with caution. The principle requiring speedy discipline does not allow the employer to hold the actual hearing before the employee has had a fair opportunity to prepare a defence. Thus, a delay in holding the hearing will be well justified if it is motivated by the need to give the employee time to understand the charges and to apply his/her mind to a defence. Where employers do not have internal officials with the time or know-how to manage this process, they are advised to outsource this task to an external expert.

Also, expert training of officials in the skills required to investigate and bring charges can go a long way towards avoiding procedural flaws that can invalidate the disciplinary process.

  • He can be contacted on 011-888-7944 or
  • Our appreciation to Ivan and The Star newspaper for permission to publish this article 

Case Law Summaries and Articles


Can employees be dismissed for refusing to accept new terms and conditions of employment?

Can an employer dismiss employees because they refuse to agree to a change to their terms and conditions of employment? An initial answer may be, “yes”.

Read More >>>


Escape route: “Resignation with immediate effect”

The latest case in the ‘disciplining employees who have resigned with immediate effect’ saga has brought about more uncertainty as to whether an employee who resigns with immediate effect shortly before a disciplinary hearing can avoid disciplinary action and subsequent dismissal.

Read More >>>


Freedom of expression or incitement to commit an offence? A constitutional challenge

On 4 July 2019, the North Gauteng High Court handed down judgment in the case of The EFF and other v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and other (87638/2017 and 45666/2017) in which the EFF and Julius Malema (the applicants) sought to have s18(2)(b) of the Riotous Assemblies Act, No 17 of 1956 (Riotous Act) declared unconstitutional.

Read More >>>


Consolidated, comprehensive or general final written warnings

Regarding dismissal, according to the Code of Good Practice, “the courts have endorsed the concept of corrective or progressive discipline. This approach regards the purpose of discipline as a means for employees to know and understand what standards are required of them.

Read More >>>







Courses and Workshops




Shop Steward Training

28 August 2019

Emperors Palace Convention Centre

Employment Equity Committee Training

29 August 2019 (Fully Booked)

Tsogo Sun: Century City: Cape Town

30 August 2019

Tsogo Sun: Century City: Cape Town

27 September 2019

Emperors Palace: Convention Centre

04 October 2019

Southern Sun: Maharani: Durban

Basic Labour Relations

04 September 2019

Emperors Palace: Convention Centre

Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Course

12 September 2019

Southern Sun: Maharani Towers: Durban

The OHS Act and the Responsibilities of Management

13 September 2019

Southern Sun: Maharani Towers: Durban

19 September 2019

Emperors Palace: Convention Centre

28 November 2019

Protea Hotel By Marriott Tyger Valley: Cape Town

Managing Day to Day Issues/ Problem Employees Full day workshop

20 September 2019

Emperors Palace: Convention Centre

27 September 2019

Tsogo Sun: Century City: Cape Town

AARTO and the Impact on Your Business

03 October 2019

Emperors Palace Convention Centre

Hazard Identification & Risk Assessment Course

18 October 2019

Emperors Palace: Convention Centre

21 November 2019

Tsogo Sun: Century City: Stay Easy: Cape Town

Workshop Incident/Accident Investigation Course

25 October 2019

Emperors Palace: Convention Centre

22 November 2019

Tsogo Sun: Century City: Stay Easy: Cape Town


 Our Clients 


Android App On Google Play

Android App On Google Play