Labour Law
An employer was convinced they had a strong disciplinary case.
An employee had allegedly manipulated company records by authorising transactions that should never have been approved. Management conducted a thorough investigation, gathered documentary evidence, interviewed witnesses and prepared for a disciplinary hearing. They were confident that dismissal would follow.
Months later, the matter reached the CCMA.
Surprisingly, the commissioner spent very little time considering whether the employee had actually committed the misconduct. Instead, the focus shifted to something far more fundamental: the wording of the disciplinary charge sheet.
The employer had charged the employee with "acting against company policy."
The charge did not identify which policy had been breached. It failed to describe the conduct, contained no dates and provided no explanation of what the employee had allegedly done.
Although management believed everyone understood the allegation, the commissioner found that the employee had not been given enough information to prepare a proper defence. What appeared to be a minor drafting issue ultimately weakened an otherwise strong disciplinary case.
This situation is far from uncommon. Every year, employers lose or unnecessarily complicate disciplinary matters because the charges issued to employees are vague, poorly drafted or lack sufficient detail.
Many employers treat the disciplinary charge sheet as nothing more than an administrative document that starts the disciplinary process. In reality, it is one of the most important documents in the entire procedure.
The purpose of a disciplinary charge is simple: it must tell the employee exactly what misconduct they are alleged to have committed. Without sufficient detail, an employee cannot properly prepare a defence, identify relevant witnesses or understand the seriousness of the allegations.
Procedural fairness begins long before the disciplinary hearing itself.
If an employee only discovers the details of the allegations during the hearing, they have already been placed at a significant disadvantage. South African labour law recognises this principle, which is why employees must receive adequate information before disciplinary proceedings commence.
Many disciplinary charges appear acceptable at first glance but provide very little useful information.
Examples include:
While these phrases describe general categories of misconduct, they fail to answer the questions that matter.
Which policy was breached?
What specific behaviour was considered inappropriate?
What act amounted to negligence?
When did the alleged misconduct occur?
Who was affected?
Without these details, employers expose themselves to unnecessary procedural challenges that can overshadow the actual merits of the case.
One of the most common drafting mistakes is charging an employee with a conclusion instead of describing the conduct that led to that conclusion.
Rather than simply alleging that an employee was "dishonest," explain what the employee is alleged to have done.
For example, instead of stating:
Charge: Dishonesty.
Consider wording the allegation as follows:
Charge: On or about 14 March 2026, you knowingly submitted an overtime claim reflecting hours that were not worked, resulting in an incorrect payment being processed.
The second example immediately tells the employee what conduct is being alleged and allows them to prepare an informed response.
Specificity benefits both parties. Employees understand the case they must answer, while employers demonstrate procedural fairness from the outset.
Another frequent mistake is combining several unrelated allegations into a single disciplinary charge.
For example:
Gross negligence, insubordination, dishonesty and breach of company policy.
Combining multiple allegations into one charge can create unnecessary complications. If the evidence supports one allegation but not another, it becomes more difficult for the chairperson to assess each issue independently.
Separate charges make disciplinary hearings easier to manage, simplify decision-making and produce clearer findings.
A disciplinary hearing should never be used to investigate what happened.
By the time charges are drafted, the employer's investigation should already have established the relevant facts and identified the alleged misconduct.
The purpose of the hearing is to determine whether the available evidence proves those allegations after the employee has been given a fair opportunity to respond.
Well-drafted charges demonstrate that the employer has properly investigated the matter before initiating disciplinary proceedings.
Some employers worry that providing detailed disciplinary charges gives employees an advantage.
The opposite is true.
Procedural fairness protects both parties. Employees are entitled to know exactly what they are accused of, while employers deserve disciplinary outcomes that can withstand scrutiny if the matter proceeds to the CCMA, a Bargaining Council or the Labour Court.
A properly drafted charge sheet strengthens the credibility of the disciplinary process and reduces the likelihood of successful procedural challenges.
Before serving disciplinary charges on an employee, consider the following:
If the answer to any of these questions is no, the charge sheet may require further refinement before the disciplinary hearing proceeds.
Successful disciplinary hearings are rarely decided by clever legal arguments alone.
More often, they succeed because the employer followed a fair, consistent and well-documented process from the very beginning.
A properly drafted charge sheet is more than an administrative requirement. It promotes procedural fairness, provides clarity for everyone involved and lays the foundation for a disciplinary process that can withstand scrutiny before the CCMA, a Bargaining Council or the Labour Court.
It may be one of the shortest documents in the disciplinary process, but it is undoubtedly one of the most important.