Top stories






Logistics & TransportUnitrans walks away with Rio Tinto safety RockStar award for its exemplary contributions to RBM
Unitrans 1 day
More news

















This article explores the legal boundaries of revisiting workplace sanctions, drawing on key judgments to clarify when a rehearing or internal review is permissible.
Employers typically appoint an independent chairperson to ensure impartiality during disciplinary hearings. If an employee is dissatisfied with the outcome, they may appeal internally or escalate the matter to the CCMA or Labour Court.
Several landmark cases have shaped the legal framework:
The Labour Appeal Court said that whether a second disciplinary enquiry may be opened against an employee would depend upon whether it is, in all the circumstances, fair to do so. However, despite fairness being the yardstick, the court imposed factors that could potentially serve as a limitation to an employer holding a second disciplinary enquiry, namely being the following:
The Labour Appeal Court held that fairness is the ultimate test. An employer may override a chairperson’s decision, but only in exceptional circumstances.
The Labour Court allowed employers to review sanctions where:
Confirmed that employers may impose a harsher sanction if fair and under exceptional conditions.
The employee's dismissal was found to be unfair because there was a collective agreement in place that gave the chairperson final decision-making powers, but the Constitutional Court denied reinstatement due to the gravity of the misconduct, awarding compensation instead.
The Labour Court held that:
The High Court ruled that internal reviews are permissible – even if not explicitly provided for – if they are fair, non-prejudicial, and aligned with broader labour law principles. This case broadened the employer’s ability to act when misconduct is serious, and the initial outcome is unreasonable.
The Labour Appeal Court reiterated that fairness remains the test, and rehearing is only justified in exceptional circumstances.
Employers must ensure that any decision to revisit a disciplinary sanction is grounded in fairness. Courts consistently emphasise that fairness, not convenience or dissatisfaction, is the guiding principle. Revisiting a sanction without a fair and justifiable reason risks legal challenge and reputational damage.
Employers may only override a chairperson’s decision in exceptional circumstances.
These include:
The disciplinary code is central. If it does not provide for internal reviews or rehearings, employers may be functus officio, meaning they cannot revisit the decision.
Revisiting sanctions without a solid legal basis can:
Employers must weigh the legal risks against the operational need to maintain discipline and uphold workplace standards.
Employers must tread carefully when considering a rehearing or internal review. While the law does allow for revisiting disciplinary outcomes, it does so under strict conditions to protect the integrity of workplace justice. Ensuring procedural fairness, aligning with the disciplinary code, and acting transparently are essential to avoid legal pitfalls.
If you are navigating a complex disciplinary matter, understanding these legal boundaries is essential. Let fairness, not frustration, guide your next steps.