Disciplinary hearings are essential for managing misconduct and maintaining workplace integrity. Although South African employers are not legally required to appoint an external chairperson, doing so increasingly proves vital for ensuring fairness and credibility. 

This article contends that appointing a neutral, independent chairperson is not just best practice; it is a strategic imperative. Such a presiding officer upholds the dual requirements of substantive and procedural fairness, as outlined in the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (LRA) and the Code of Good Practice: Dismissal. 

South African case law consistently highlights the risks of real or perceived bias, with dismissals being overturned when impartiality is lacking. Through legal and practical analysis, this article demonstrates the value of independent chairpersons in promoting fair, consistent, and defensible disciplinary outcomes. 

The Legal Framework for Fairness in Disciplinary Action 

The Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (LRA), supported by the Code of Good Practice: Dismissal, provides that a dismissal must be both substantively and procedurally fair. 

While employers may competently assess the substance of a transgression, ensuring the impartial conduct of the disciplinary hearing is more challenging without the appointment of a truly neutral presiding officer. 

The Role and Duties of the Chairperson 

The chairperson is entrusted with facilitating the disciplinary hearing, safeguarding procedural fairness, and rendering a verdict and sanction based on the evidence. Their key duties include: 

• Ensuring that both parties are heard fairly and without interruption; 
• Applying the correct procedure in line with company policy and labour law principles; 
• Ruling on evidentiary and procedural objections; 
• Deciding which version of events is more probable; 
• Recommending or imposing a sanction, where appropriate. 

For the hearing to be procedurally sound, the chairperson must be independent, impartial, and perceived as such. This means the chairperson must have no prior involvement with the investigation, the employee, or the events giving rise to the charge. The appearance of bias, even if unintended, can render the entire hearing procedurally unfair. 

Case Law  

The dangers of a biased or improperly appointed chairperson are not hypothetical. South African labour jurisprudence has repeatedly affirmed the requirement of impartiality: 

In Chirac v Transnet Ltd (2009) 4 BALR 350 (CCMA), a dismissal was found to be unfair because the chairperson of the hearing was found to have had a hostile prior relationship with the employee. The CCMA held that the chairperson’s bias compromised the fairness of the hearing. 

In SARS v CCMA and Others (2015), the Labour Court initially held that SARS could not overturn a chairperson’s finding of not guilty. However, the Labour Appeal Court later clarified that where a chairperson’s decision is unreasonable or procedurally flawed, an employer may seek a review. This underscores the importance of appointing a legally competent and independent chairperson from the outset to avoid subsequent disputes and review proceedings. 

These cases demonstrate the legal risks associated with biased or unqualified chairpersons and highlight the benefits of appointing an external, neutral party. 

Benefits of Using a Neutral External Chairperson 

1. Enhances Procedural Fairness 

An external chairperson with no prior knowledge of the case ensures a fresh, unbiased assessment. This bolsters confidence in the integrity of the process, particularly when serious sanctions such as dismissal are on the table. 

2. Reduces Legal Risk 

Employers expose themselves to reputational and financial risk if dismissals are later found to be procedurally unfair due to a biased or improperly conducted hearing. Appointing an independent chairperson substantially reduces the risk of successful unfair dismissal claims. 

3. Demonstrates Good Faith and Objectivity 

An independent process signals to employees, and to the CCMA, that the employer is committed to fair treatment, even when enforcing discipline. This can aid in resolving disputes more amicably and mitigate internal distrust. 

4. Brings Legal Expertise 

While South African law does not require chairpersons to be legally trained, disciplinary proceedings often involve nuanced issues of evidence, procedure, and mitigation. An experienced chairperson, such as an attorney or labour consultant, can ensure that the process meets the standards expected by adjudicative forums. 

5. Supports Consistency and Policy Compliance 

External chairpersons typically apply established disciplinary codes and procedures more consistently than internal managers, who may be influenced by departmental pressures or relationships. This supports fair outcomes and ensures alignment with internal policies. 

Conclusion

In light of South Africa’s robust labour protections and the increasing scrutiny of workplace disciplinary processes, it is not only prudent but essential that employers adopt practices that ensure procedural integrity. Chief among these is the appointment of an independent, neutral chairperson in disciplinary hearings. 

This step is more than a procedural safeguard; it is a demonstration of respect for the principles of justice, transparency, and accountability. Employers who internalise and operationalise these values not only reduce the risk of costly legal disputes but also cultivate a workplace culture rooted in fairness and trust. 

Written by Ross Hendriks, Specialist Employment and Labour Law, SchoemanLaw Inc