MANY employers, in a hurry to get rid of some employees, take shortcuts and in the process deny employees reasonable time to prepare, a thing that becomes costly for the employer later.

Once an employee has been charged with misconduct, he must be given reasonable time to prepare for the hearing. 

Generally acceptable reasonable time to prepare is a minimum of three working days and for reckoning of time, we exclude Saturdays and Sundays. 

The employee should be given time to get a legal practitioner or other representative and thereafter prepare for the hearing if he or she so chooses.

Ordinarily, the day the disciplinary process is received is also not counted and where the employee requests more time to prepare, the disciplinary authority must deal with each case on its merits. 

For example, where a lawyer or trade unionist representing an employee is appearing before a superior court and such evidence has been tendered reasonable, postponement must be granted.

We find dicta in the case Rwodzi vs Municipality of Chegutu where the Supreme Court said the facts of the case are not important. 

The Supreme Court said: “The presiding officer should be impartial. In this case, the applicant was served with a notice of hearing at 8.00 p.m., about 14½hours before the time of the hearing with only about 2½hours of business or office hours before the hearing. In my view, this cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be said to be reasonable notice. Further, and to compound it all, the applicant’s request for more time to prepare his defence and to arrange for legal representation, which was communicated before the hearing, was disregarded. 

The respondent thus proceeded to make a determination on the matter without hearing the applicant’s version. The applicant was found guilty and the penalty of dismissal was imposed in these circumstances. The charges on which he was found guilty were not specified in the letter inviting him to a hearing. They are stated in the letter advising the applicant of the determination made.

It is very clear on the facts of this matter that not only was the applicant not heard, he was denied a hearing. He was also denied representation. Equally if not more glaring, is the fact that he was not advised of the charges that he was facing when he was invited for a hearing.

In my view the above indicates a blatant and unconscionable disregard of natural justice principles, which permeates the whole matter with the irresistible consequence that for these very same reasons, not only should condonation for late filing of the application for review be granted, but the relief sought in the application for review itself should also be granted in favour of the applicant.”

This case also brings up the need for the presiding official to be impartial especially by making sure the employee is given clear charges so as to prepare his or her defence and not to put the charges in the determination.

In conclusion, the disciplinary process must procedurally follow the code of conduct and ensure the employee is given reasonable time to prepare.

– Davies Ndumiso Sibanda can be contacted on: email: [email protected]