Discipline and Dismissal

Ivan Israelstam


Disciplinary hearing chairpersons should not count their chickens before they hatch. It all too frequently occurs that employers conspire to get rid of employees despite the absence of genuine evidence of the employees' wrongdoing.

This employers do for a wide variety of reasons including, but not limited to the following:

  • The employer dislikes the employee for reasons unrelated to the workplace.
    For example, the manager is aware that the employee, who goes out with the manager's daughter, belongs to a biker gang. The manager fires the employee for refusing to leave his daughter alone
  • The owner wants a more attractive secretary
  • The employee is unwilling to grant her superior sexual favours
  • The employee has clashed with a key executive who has threatened to resign
  • The employee has reported the employer to SARS, the Department of Labour or Department of Health for violating the law
  • The manager is under pressure to perform and uses the dismissed employee as the scapegoat for performance problems
  • The employer feels that it is time that it shows the workers who is boss and picks on the first employee who makes a mistake
  • The shop steward stands up for the employee's rights and is labelled as a trouble maker.

 

Employers then conspire to get rid of such undesirables through the use of a number of tricks including:

  • Firing the employee orally and then pretending that the employee absconded
  • Framing the employee for poor performance or misconduct
  • Provoking the employee into committing misconduct
  • Setting up a disciplinary hearing where the presiding officer has been primed in advance to fire the employee.

 

This latter trick clearly renders the presiding officer biased. This constitutes a serious breach of the employee's right to fair procedure. Where the employer is caught out using such a biased presiding officer the CCMA has no mercy. The employee is likely to be reinstated with full back pay or to be granted heavy compensation to be paid by the employer.

Such bias on the part of a disciplinary hearing chairperson can be discovered in a number of ways including where:

  • The chairperson grants the complainant (person bringing the case for the employer) the opportunity to obtain more evidence, take adjournments or interrupt the employee; but does not grant the employee similar rights
  • The presiding officer ignores evidence brought by the employee
  • The chairperson is chosen to hear the matter despite having been the one who caught the employee breaking the rule


In the case of Fawu obo Sotyatu vs JH group Retail Trust (2001, 8 BALR 864) the arbitrator found that the manager who chaired the disciplinary hearing had been the one who had apprehended the employee. This was found to indicate bias and was unfair. The employee was reinstated with full back pay.

The chairperson says things early in the hearing that indicate that he/she has decided in advance that the employee is guilty. For example, in the case of Fourie & Partners Attorneys obo Mahlubandile vs Robben Marine cc (2006, 6 BALR 569) the employee was dismissed for attempting to remove several frozen chickens.

He had hidden these chickens in a bucket. The arbitrator accepted that the employee was guilty of the offence but still found the dismissal to be unfair. This was primarily because the chairperson of the disciplinary hearing had revealed his bias by asking the employee at the beginning of the hearing "do you have an excuse for stealing the chickens?"

It is advised therefore that presiding officers must always be unbiased. The fact that arbitrators do not hesitate to punish biased or inept presiding officers means that employers should:

  • resist the temptation to "fix" the outcome of disciplinary hearings in advance
  • avoid misusing disciplinary processes to pursue private agendas
  • ensure that only impartial and properly trained persons chair disciplinary hearings.
 

Ivan Israelstam is chief executive of Labour Law Management Consulting.
He may be contacted on 011-888-7944 or 082-852-2973 or email    
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