What is a disciplinary hearing and how does it work?

A letter arrives on Friday afternoon telling you to attend a disciplinary hearing on Monday morning. It lists an allegation in nine words. You have never been to one and you do not know whether to take it seriously.

This guide is part of our Discipline at work: warnings, hearings and dismissal, which links every guide on the topic.

Take it seriously. It is the process that decides whether you keep your job, and the decisions you make in the first forty-eight hours affect both the hearing and everything that follows it.

What it is meant to be

The Code of Good Practice: Dismissal, 2025 sets out what fairness requires before dismissing someone for misconduct. It came into force on 4 September 2025 and replaced Schedule 8 of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995, which is the name most published guidance still uses. The core of the procedure carried over, but the wording changed in places. Item 11 says the purpose of a fair procedure is a genuine dialogue and an opportunity for reflection before any decision is taken, and that the investigation or enquiry does not have to be formal. Usually, before a decision to dismiss for misconduct, the employee should be:

• notified of the allegations, preferably in writing, with enough detail to understand them
• given an opportunity, within a reasonable period to prepare, to make representations on both the allegations and the appropriate sanction
• allowed the assistance of a trade union representative or a fellow employee
• where reasonably possible, given the chance to speak in a language they are comfortable with

If the employee is a shop steward or a union office-bearer or official, the employer should inform and consult the union before starting discipline. In exceptional circumstances an employer that cannot reasonably be expected to follow these steps may dispense with some or all of them, but it may have to justify that at the CCMA.

The old Schedule 8 also told employers to communicate the decision, preferably in writing, and to remind a dismissed employee of the right to refer the matter to a bargaining council or the CCMA. The 2025 Code does not repeat those lines. They remain good practice, most disciplinary codes still require them, and your right to refer a dispute does not depend on being reminded of it.

Notice what is not in that list. There is no requirement for a formal trial, cross-examination on the criminal model, rules of evidence or legal representation. In Avril Elizabeth Home for the Mentally Handicapped v CCMA (2006), the Labour Court rejected the idea that a workplace enquiry should replicate a criminal trial, and the 2025 Code says the enquiry should suit the type of allegation and the size of the employer. It is an enquiry into whether a workplace rule was broken.

That cuts both ways. Employees should not expect a courtroom. Employers who run one anyway do not gain protection from the formality, and they still lose on the things that actually matter.

Notice and the charge sheet

"Reasonable time to prepare" is the standard, and there is no fixed statutory period. Forty-eight hours is a common practice and is often reasonable for a simple matter. It is not reasonable for a complex allegation supported by a folder of documents.

If the time is too short, ask in writing for a postponement and give reasons. A refusal to grant a reasonable postponement is a strong procedural point later; failing to ask for one is not.

The charge sheet should tell you what you are actually accused of. That means the conduct, the date, and the rule or policy said to have been breached. "Misconduct" is not an allegation. "Insubordination" without particulars is not much better.

If the allegations are vague, ask in writing for particulars before the hearing. You cannot prepare an answer to something that has not been specified, and having asked and been refused is worth a great deal more than complaining about it afterwards.

Ask for the documents the employer intends to rely on, and for the names of the witnesses. Our guide on preparing for a disciplinary hearing turns this into a step-by-step plan for the days before the hearing.

Representation

You are entitled to be assisted by a fellow employee or a trade union representative. Use that right. Somebody taking notes while you concentrate on answering is worth more than most people expect, and a union representative who has done twenty of these knows the employer's code better than you do.

Legal representation is not an automatic right in an internal hearing. Whether an attorney may appear usually depends on the employer's disciplinary code, and where the code is silent the position is that the employee may apply to the chairperson, who has a discretion. Complexity, the seriousness of the consequences and whether the employer is itself legally represented are the factors that carry weight. Our guide on legal representation at a disciplinary hearing explains how to ask.

At the CCMA the position is different again, and our guide on referring an unfair dismissal to the CCMA sets out the rules on representation there.

The chairperson

The chairperson should be impartial. That means:

• not the person who investigated the matter
• not a witness to it
• not the complainant
• not somebody who has already expressed a view on the outcome

The chairperson may be a manager from another department, or an external chairperson appointed for the purpose. Either is fine, and employers setting one up can follow our guide on running a disciplinary hearing. What is not fine is the manager who caught you, wrote the complaint, gathered the evidence and now sits in judgement.

If the chairperson is conflicted, object at the start of the hearing and have the objection recorded. Raising it for the first time at the CCMA, after an adverse outcome, is worth much less.

How the hearing runs

The usual shape:

The allegations are put to you and you plead to each one.

The employer presents its case, calling witnesses and producing documents.

You question the witnesses. This is the part employees most often waive and most often should not. You do not have to be skilful. You have to ask the questions that matter: how they know, what they actually saw, whether it was in fact you.

You present your case, giving your own version and calling any witnesses you have.

The employer questions you.

Both sides address the chairperson on whether the allegation has been proved.

The chairperson decides on the merits.

Mitigation, if you are found guilty. This is a separate stage and it is where the sanction is decided. The 2025 Code expressly gives you the right to make representations on the sanction, not only on the charge. Length of service, a clean disciplinary record, personal circumstances, the consequences of dismissal for you and your dependants, remorse, and any explanation for the conduct all belong here. Employees routinely say nothing at this stage because they are still arguing about the merits, and it is a costly silence.

The chairperson decides on sanction and the outcome is communicated, preferably in writing and with reasons.

Should you attend?

Yes, and you should participate.

A hearing can proceed in your absence if you fail to attend without a good reason, and an employer that gave proper notice is entitled to go ahead. Refusing to attend as a protest achieves nothing, and it removes your version from the record entirely.

Staying silent because you think it will help at the CCMA is a misreading. The CCMA hearing is a fresh hearing on the merits, but a version raised for the first time months later, after an opportunity to give it was declined, does not sound the same as one given at the time.

If you genuinely cannot attend, say so in writing, with the reason, before the hearing.

What makes a hearing unfair

No notice, or notice so short it was meaningless.

No particulars, so that the employee could not know what to answer.

A conflicted chairperson.

Refusal of the right to be assisted by a fellow employee or union representative.

Refusal to allow you to question witnesses or to call your own.

A predetermined outcome, which sometimes announces itself through a dismissal letter dated before the hearing.

Inconsistency, where other employees who did the same thing were treated differently. This is a substantive point rather than a procedural one, and it is one of the strongest arguments available.

Our guide on being fired without a disciplinary hearing deals with the case where there was no hearing at all.

Procedure is not the whole case

An important corrective, because people put too much weight on it.

Dismissal has to be both substantively fair, meaning there was a fair reason, and procedurally fair, meaning a fair process was followed. Our guide on what counts as a fair reason for dismissal covers the first.

Where the reason was fair but the procedure was defective, the usual outcome is compensation rather than reinstatement, and the compensation reflects the procedural failure rather than the loss of the job. Where the reason itself was unfair, reinstatement is the primary remedy. Our guide on how much the CCMA can award sets out the limits.

So the merits matter more than the ritual. An employee whose entire case is that the hearing was held on four days' notice instead of five is usually disappointed.

After the outcome

Appeal, if the employer's code provides for one, within the period it specifies. Not every code does.

Refer the dispute to the CCMA or the relevant bargaining council within 30 days of the dismissal. This is the deadline that matters most, and it is short. Section 191(1)(b)(i) of the Labour Relations Act runs it from the date of dismissal or, if later, from the employer's final decision to dismiss or uphold the dismissal, but counting from the dismissal itself is the safe course. Our CCMA deadline checker works out your dates.

Ask for the record. The minutes, the outcome and the reasons. You are going to need them.

Keep everything: the notice, the charge sheet, the documents, your notes, the outcome letter, and the dates.

Worked example

This example is illustrative. A warehouse supervisor with eleven years' service and a clean record is charged with gross negligence after stock worth R60 000 goes missing on his shift. He receives the notice on Friday for a hearing on Monday, with one line of allegation and no documents.

He writes on Friday afternoon asking for the stock records, the CCTV he has been told exists, the names of the witnesses, and a postponement to the following week to prepare. The employer grants three extra days but does not produce the CCTV.

At the hearing he objects to the chairperson, who is the operations manager who conducted the investigation and interviewed the staff. The objection is recorded and refused.

On the merits he questions the stock controller and establishes that the count was done two days later, that two other shifts had access in the interval, and that the discrepancy has occurred twice before without anybody being charged.

He is nonetheless found guilty. At mitigation he puts up eleven years of service, a clean record, three dependants, and the fact that no employee has previously been dismissed for a stock variance of this kind.

He is dismissed anyway. He refers the matter to the CCMA within 30 days.

What he takes into that hearing is strong, and none of it is decoration: a documented request for evidence that was never produced, a recorded objection to a chairperson who investigated the matter, an established gap in the chain of custody of the stock, and a clear inconsistency in how the employer has treated the same conduct before. Each of those exists because he did something specific at the time, in writing, rather than afterwards.