Labour law gives employees the right to an impartial presiding officer chairing the hearing. Some of the reasons that employers fail to comply with this requirement include:
- The employer’s intention is to get the employee fired regardless of the consequences OR
- Those assigned the task of chairing hearings are not properly trained OR
- The employer does not understand what constitutes bias.
Some factors that may suggest that the hearing chairperson could be biased include situations where the chairperson:
- has previously had a clash with the accused employee
- has prior knowledge of the details of the case
- is a close friend of the complainant bringing the charge
- unreasonably turns down requests from the employee for representation, witnesses, an interpreter or other requirements
- makes a finding that is unsupported by the facts brought before the hearing.
What does not necessarily constitute bias is the refusal of the chairperson to allow legally impermissible evidence or to hear irrelevant testimony.
However, it is extremely difficult for a hearing chairperson to distinguish fairly between reasonably and unreasonably turning down such requests made by the accused. The ability to make rulings in this regard that will stand up in court can only be acquired via substantial formal training and solid experience of the hearing chairperson.
In the case of FAWU obo Sotyato vs JH group Retail Trust (2001, 8 BALR 864) the employee confessed to having stolen two bottles of beer from the employer and to drinking one of them during working hours. The arbitrator did not accept the confession as valid and also found that the chairperson of the hearing was biased. This was because the chairperson had caught the accused employee with the beers and had been involved in drawing up the charges. This created a reasonable apprehension of bias and rendered the dismissal procedurally unfair. The employee was reinstated with full back pay.
In SACCAWU obo Mosiane vs City Lodge Hotels Ltd (2004, 2 BALR 255) the employee was dismissed for stealing an item belonging to a guest of the hotel that employed the accused. The arbitrator found the dismissal to be substantively and procedurally unfair because the chairperson of the hearing had been biased and reinstated the employee.
In order to ensure that employers do not lose cases due to chairperson bias or alleged bias at disciplinary hearings employers must ensure that:
- hearing chairpersons have no involvement in or knowledge of the case prior to the hearing
- hearing chairpersons have a solid understanding as to what constitutes apprehension of bias
- they contract in a labour law specialist to chair hearings where the employer has no internal official with the necessary qualifications and knowledge to carry out the task properly.
To buy our E-book WALKING THE NEW LABOUR LAW TIGHTROPE please contact Ivan on firstname.lastname@example.org or 011-888-7944.
Business Essentials is Africa’s premium networking and business directory.
Read more from our Press Room:
A Sound Investment – What you need to know about Loss of Hearing
The Reason that Freelancers Prefer a Co-Working Environment.
Keep up to date with industry related business tips, tricks and advice.