The autonomy of independent chairpersons in disciplinary proceedings

Abstract

Discipline in the workplace is one of the most contentious issues in the employment relationship. It requires a careful balance of competing rights, those of the employer who must ensure discipline and the employee who must be treated fairly in the workplace. To ensure impartiality, fairness and procedural integrity of the process, employers often appoint independent chairpersons to preside over disciplinary hearings. This aligns with the precepts of Section 188 of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995, which prescribes that a dismissal of an employee must not only be fair substantively but must be procedurally fair as well. Failure to adhere to this principle will render the employer's conduct unfair and subject to review. What happens when the employer is dissatisfied with the decision or finding of the independent chairperson? Does an employer have the right to overturn or disregard the decision of the chairperson and substitute it with its own? This research explores the legal and practical limitations of the autonomy of the independent chairperson, in light of the decision of SARS v CCMA (Kruger). This research draws on the relevant case law, statutory provisions, and scholarly commentary to critically assess the balance between the employer's prerogative and the right to fair process in disciplinary matters.