Guidelines Formulated By The Labour Court In Order To Ensure Compliance With The Audi Alteram Partem Rule When An Arbitrator Wishes To Rely On Portions Of A Transcript Or Record Of An Internal Disciplinary Enquiry Where The Parties Agreed That Such Record Or Transcript Correctly Purports What It Wishes To Portray

Labour Edge

In the scenario where the parties agreed that the transcript or record of an internal disciplinary enquiry correctly purports what it wishes to portray and the relevant arbitrator is contemplating utilising certain portions of such transcript, what guidelines must be complied with in order to ensure compliance with the audi alteram partem rule?

The article sets out the approach adopted to the above question by the labour court in Hillside Aluminium (Pty) Ltd v Moses Mathuse and Others.[1]

 

 

In Hillside Aluminium (Pty) Ltd v Moses Mathuse and Others,[1] the following approach was adopted:

  1. the audi alteram partem rule requires that the parties and their representatives be given an opportunity to be heard regarding every matter and every piece of evidence the arbitrator may take into account;
  2. if there is non-compliance with the audi alteram partem rule, the parties are indeed denied a fair hearing; and
  3. where an arbitrator is considering factors that were not canvassed in evidence, he or she is required to alert the parties of this fact and invite them or afford them the opportunity to lead evidence or make submissions pertaining to these factors intended to be considered.

[1]          Supra

June 12, 2025

In terms of s34(1) of the BCEA, an employer may not make deductions from an employee’s remuneration unless, subject to s34(2), the employee agrees, in writing, or the deduction is made in terms of a law, collective agreement, court order or arbitration award.

June 5, 2025

A case is moot and therefore not justiciable if it no longer presents an existing or live controversy. With reference to National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Others [1999] ZACC 17; 2000 (2) SA 1 (CC), how did the supreme court of appeal, in Mhlontlo Local Municipality and Others v Ngcangula and Another (2024) 35 SALLR 132 (SCA) recently deal with this issue?

May 29, 2025

The principle underlying the doctrine of peremption is that no person can be allowed to take up two positions inconsistent with one another, or, as is commonly expressed, to blow hot and cold, to approbate and reprobate when considering pursuing litigation. With reference to Qoboshiyane NO v Avusa Publishing Eastern Cape [2012] ZASCA 166; 2013 (3) SA 315 (SCA), what is the test to be applied to determine whether or not a party has perempted its right to institute legal proceedings?