Discipline and Dismissal

Ivan Israelstam


There is a serious misconception that employers may not get external experts to chair disciplinary hearings.  It is true that such experts might, under certain circumstances not be allowed to represent the employer (or the employee). 


However, the person chairing the hearing is not representing either of the parties. Instead, the chairperson is there to gather the facts provided by both parties and to make a fair decision, which could go either way. In the case of Khula Enterprise Finance Limited vs Madinane and others (2004, 4 BLLR 366) the Labour Court found that it was not unfair for an external legal expert to chair a disciplinary hearing.

Not only is it perfectly fair and legal for an external expert to be asked to chair the hearing, it is also desirable because:

  • An external person will be less susceptible to influence from the parties than would an internal chairperson;
  • An expert in labour law will have the experience and skill to run the hearing according to the very complex requirements of the laws of evidence;
  • Such an expert would be able to arrive at a fair decision without breaching the myriad of complex principles that the CCMA expects to be applied.

A great many employers have had their dismissal decisions overturned at the CCMA, not because the dismissal was considered inappropriate, but because the chairperson, an internal employee or manager was unskilled in the chairing of hearings.

Schedule 8 of the Labour Relations Act (LRA) requires that the employee be allowed the opportunity to state a case in response to the allegations.

The courts have consistently interpreted the latter requirement to mean that the accused employee must be given the right to an unbiased chairperson, to testify, to bring documents, call witnesses and cross examine evidence brought against him/her.

The question then is how can an employer provide for these legal rights without setting up a proper enquiry with a fully-skilled chairperson and prove that all these rights have been afforded to the employee without taking proper minutes?

To ensure that the employer complies with the employee's rights and in order to be able to prove such compliance, the employer has no choice but to use a properly skilled chairperson and to set up a formal hearing, the record of which becomes part of the evidence at the CCMA.

In the case of Schoon vs MEC, Department of Finance (2003 Contemporary Labour Law Vol 13 No.4 2003) the High Court of Appeal decided that the chairperson of a disciplinary enquiry cannot rely on the disciplinary code alone but must also take into account the provisions of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2003.

Also, the court decided that the employer's refusal to allow the accused the right to legal representation at an internal disciplinary hearing was unconstitutional.  This startling decision strongly indicates that the courts see internal disciplinary hearings as very formal processes. Furthermore, where an employee is suspected of poor performance it is not enough to have an informal discussion with the employee about the problem and then to fire him/her the next week.

The LRA sets down specific steps to be followed before a dismissal for poor performance can even be considered.  For example, the employee must have received sufficient evaluation, guidance, counselling and training. Even then, the employee's poor performance must have continued after he/she received the said evaluation and guidance.

Furthermore, to justify dismissal, there needs to be an investigation into the alleged poor performance and proof that there is no other way of remedying the performance problem. It is not practical to comply properly with such stringent requirements in an informal manner because informal processes are difficult to control and to prove.

Thus, whether the employee is a probationer, an experienced worker or a senior executive it is far safer to formalise all procedures related to misconduct and poor performance. Also, the officials who carry out the corrective procedure need to be highly skilled in legal procedure in order to make sure that each legal right of the employee is strictly adhered to.

This includes the employee's right to an unbiased chairperson. A presiding officer unskilled in chairing hearings risks breaking rules of impartiality. 

This is likely to destroy the employer's case at the CCMA.

  • Ivan Israelstam is chief executive of Labour Law Management Consulting. Contact him on 082-852-2973 or
  • Our thanks to Ivan and The Star newspaper for permission to publish this article

Courses and Workshops




2020: Case Law Updates: Online Conference

30 October 2020 (08:30 - 16:00)

Case Law Updates: Online Conference

Management and Leadership Skills

04, 05 & 06 November 2020 (08:30 - 16:00)

Interactive Online Course

Strategic Human Resources Management (HRM) and - Business Partnering

11, 12 & 13 November 2020 (08:30 - 16:00)

Interactive Online Course

COVID-19 Workplace Preparedness Health, Safety and Claims Management Course

12 & 13 November 2020 (09:00 - 13:00)

Interactive Online Course

Health and Safety Representative and Committee Training Course

19 November 2020 (08:30 - 16:00)

Interactive Online Course

Workshop Chairing Disciplinary Hearings

19 & 20 November 2020 (09:00 - 16:00)

Interactive Online Course

POPIA: Protection of Personal Information Act

20 November 2020 (09:00 - 12:00)

Interactive Online Course

Occupational Injuries and Diseases Legal Update and Claims Management Course

20 November 2020 (08:30 – 16:00)

Interactive Online Course

 Our Clients 


Android App On Google Play

Android App On Google Play