MANY disputes related to the accuracy of the record of proceedings have been the basis of appeals.
In a number of cases the record has been found to be defective because secretaries who will have put together the record will have not been trained people or the record will have been tampered with.
Not every managerial employee can be a secretary in a disciplinary hearing as the whole work requires training and is also guided by provisions of Statutory Instrument 379 of 1990 section 4(h) which reads, “a written record or summary to be made or any proceedings and decisions taken in terms of the code, which record or summary shall be made at the time such proceedings and decisions are taken, and shall be kept for a period of not less than 12 months”.
This clearly gives the record a legal status. There is no requirement to write the record verbatim although writing verbatim is best where possible.
However, a detailed summary of proceedings will suffice.
What constitutes a detailed summary is one that captures all the material details of the case. It must be without omission or additions. Simply put, omissions that will distort the meaning should be avoided and additions that have materiality on meaning of the statement should also be avoided.
Only additions related to grammar are acceptable as long as they do not change the meaning of what was said.
There is nothing illegal with electronically recording proceedings and later on transcribing, with modern technology either party can elect to make its own electronic record using a phone or other devices.
There is nothing wrong with that as it helps the party cross check the accuracy of the official record. Further, it acts as a deterrent on the secretary so that he/she does not “doctor’’ or tamper with the record.
Common areas of conflict relate to translation from vernacular language to English and at times because the employer puts together the record, he tampers with the minutes so as to close gaps that could be fatal to his case.
Doctoring of minutes does not help because that could easily give an employee a very good ground for appeal arguing that the decision was based on a defective record and had the disciplinary authority relied on an accurate record, it could have arrived at a different conclusion.
Where the hearing was conducted in languages other than English, there is a need for parties to be more careful as the sense and meaning of some words can be lost in translation resulting in a dispute related to the record.
In such cases it is recommended that written statements in those languages be kept in the records until the matter has been concluded. This is so because accurate translation disputes can only be settled by the court.
Electronic records like audio and video recordings must be signed for as accurate by all who were present as they can easily be tampered with.
In conclusion, all those who record disciplinary processes have to be properly trained in the writing of the record and importance of integrity of the record throughout the process be observed.
Davies Ndumiso Sibanda can be contacted on: email: [email protected]; Or cell No: 0772 375 235