Skip to main content

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

September 7, 2026

The previous article dealt with the distinction between misconduct constituting desertion and misconduct constituting abscondment – see, further, in this regard, Okhahlamba Local Municipality v Mabuya (2021) 32 SALLR 12 (LC).

In this article, what we attempt to do is provide some clarity as to a very different misconduct, namely, the misconduct of deeming desertion.

August 31, 2026

What is the difference between desertion and abscondment?

August 17, 2026

We think that everyone understands that an employer is vicariously liable for the wrong committed (an act or omission) by its employee during the course/scope/sphere of employment/engagement in any activity reasonably incidental to it.

But, what is the extent of an employer’s vicarious liability where the employee commits a wrong on his or her own volition?