Discipline and Dismissal

Disciplinary processes must be both fair and legal

Ivan Israelstam

 


When a presiding officer chairs a disciplinary hearing he/she must hear all relevant evidence offered. The chairperson does not normally have the right to ignore or to refuse to hear any evidence related to the case. However, there is one exception to this rule, that being that the evidence admitted must also be legally permissible.
 
This means that, even if the evidence offered by one of the parties is clearly relevant, the chairperson of the disciplinary hearing should still reject it if it is inadmissible according to legal principles.  Two types of evidence that may be ruled inadmissible are opinion evidence and hearsay evidence.

 
Hearsay evidence occurs, for example, where the person placing the evidence before the presiding officer is not the person who witnessed the incident. For instance, the complainant may call the bookkeeper as a witness who might testify that the accused employee had been seen by the accountant making false entries in the books of account.
 
The bookkeeper's evidence is hearsay because he/she did not see the false entries being made. His/her evidence that the accountant saw the alleged incident is hearsay, indirect or second hand. The evidence that the accused was seen making the false entries would only be admissible if the accountant testified to this fact at the hearing. Another example of hearsay at a disciplinary hearing is where the complainant hands the presiding officer a written statement (with or without the writer's signature affixed) but the writer is not brought as a witness.
 
The reasons that hearsay evidence is considered as suspect at best and impermissible at worst include that:

  • It increases the possibility that the evidence has been intentionally fabricated because the originator is not there to confirm it

  • It increases the likelihood that there may be errors in the hearsay evidence placed before the hearing and that the person presenting it might have misunderstood the originator. In this sense hearsay evidence is akin to a rumour as, the more people to whom the story is relayed, the more it can be inadvertently altered. This renders the evidence unreliable.

  • The opposition party who may wish to dispute the evidence is not given the opportunity to cross examine the originator of the evidence.

 

There are certain exceptional circumstances where hearsay evidence might be accepted to a limited extent. However, where a presiding officer of a disciplinary hearing illegally admits hearsay evidence in dismissing an employee this is most likely to result in the CCMA or bargaining council arbitrator ruling the dismissal unfair.
 
In the case of CEPPWAWU obo Tshukudu v Solid Doors (Pty) Ltd (2002, 11 BALR 1114) the employee was dismissed for allegedly making false accusations against his managing director.  The alleged fact that the accusations against the MD were false was based on hearsay evidence. The arbitrator therefore found the dismissal to be unfair and ordered the employer to reinstate the employee with full retrospective effect.
 
In NUMSA obo Mnisi v First National Battery (2007, 10 BALR 907) several employees were dismissed for allegedly stealing batteries. The presiding officer admitted into evidence a tape recording of an alleged statement by an employee implicating the employees charged with the theft.
 
The arbitrator found that the admission of this evidence to be hearsay because the maker of the alleged statement did not testify. The arbitrator, therefore, ordered the employer to reinstate all the dismissed employees with retrospective effect. When a presiding officer of a disciplinary hearing is faced with hearsay evidence he/she must consider:

 

Whether it should be admitted at all· The reason that hearsay evidence is being brought instead of first hand evidence. It may be that it is impossible for the originator of the evidence to testify because he/she has subsequently died.· Whether it should be admitted but be   given less weight than it might otherwise be given.· Admitting the hearsay evidence will result in legal prejudice to the opposing party. 

 

That is, will the admission of this evidence substantially disadvantage the case of the opposing party?· The inherent value of the evidence  outweighs the potential disadvantages of admitting hearsay evidence. Having to make these crucial yet highly complex decisions requires a solid understanding of the laws of evidence.
  
It also requires substantial skill in weighing up the pros and cons and making a decision that is fair and pragmatic for the employer but does not infringe the labour laws protecting the employee.It is therefore crucial that all employers either thoroughly train their managers who act as presiding officers or hire reputable labour law experts to chair disciplinary hearings.

   

Ivan Israelstam is chief executive of Labour Law Management Consulting. He can be contacted on 011-888-7944 or [email protected]. · Our appreciation to Ivan and The Star newspaper for permission to publish this article.

 

Subscribe to our free newsletter

* indicates required
 

By submitting your email address to us, you agree to receive our newsletters and course updates. For more information about how we protect your personal information, click here .

Accredited Training Provider

     

Upcoming Courses

 

Workplace Discipline and Dismissal

07 July 2022 (09:00 - 16:00)

Interactive Online Course

Health and Safety Representative and Committee Training Course

14 July 2022 (08:30 - 16:00)

Interactive Online Course

21 July 2022 (08:30 - 16:00)

Emperors Palace Convention Centre

Basic Labour Relations

15 July 2022 (09:00 - 16:00)

Interactive Online Course

New Code of Good Practice: Harassment in the Workplace New Course

15 July 2022 (09:00 - 12:00)

Emperors Palace: Convention Centre

Chairing Disciplinary Hearings

21 & 22 July 2022 (09:00 - 16:00)

Interactive Online Course

The OHS Act and the Responsibilities of Management (Legal Liability) 

28 July 2022 (08:30 - 16:00)

Interactive Online Course

29 July 2022 (08:30 – 16:00)

Emperors Palace: Convention Centre 

Managing day-to-day challenges in the workplace

28 July 2022 (09:00 - 15:30)

Interactive Online Course

The Basic Conditions of Employment Act and Related Workplace Policies New Course

29 July 2022 (08:30 - 12:30)

Interactive Online Course 

 

August

New Code of Good Practice: Harassment in the Workplace New Course

04 August 2022 (09:00 - 12:00)

Interactive Online Course

Trade Unions in the Workplace

05 August 2022 (09:00 - 12:00)

Interactive Online Course

Managing day-to-day challenges in the workplace

12 August 2022 (09:00 - 15:30)

Cape Town: Protea Hotel Tyger Valley

The formulation of disciplinary charges Online Course

12 August 2022 (09:00 - 12:00)

Interactive Online Course

Chairing Disciplinary Hearings

18 & 19 August 2022 (09:00 - 16:00)

Emperors Palace: Convention Centre

Hazard Identification & Risk Assessment Course

18 August 2022 (08:30 - 16:00)

Interactive Online Course

Shop Steward Training

19 August 2022 (09:00 - 16:00)

Interactive Online Course 

How to win an unfair dismissal case at the CCMA / Bargaining Council

25 August 2022 (09:00 - 16:00)

Interactive Online Course

Managing Poor Performance/ Incapacity

25 August 2022 (09:00 - 13:00)

Interactive Online Course

Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Course

26 August 2022 (08:30 - 16:00)

Interactive Online Course

 

September

Retrenchments Simplified

02 September 2022 (09:00 - 12:00)

Interactive Online Course

Introduction to Mediation New Course

08 September 2022 (09:00 - 16:00)

Interactive Online Course

Basic Labour Relations

09 September 2022 (09:00 - 16:00)

Cape Town: Protea Hotel Tyger Valley

Negotiation Skills New Course

22 September 2022 (08:30 - 16:00)

Interactive Online Course

 

Our Clients