Blog

In South African labour law, “adequate notice” of a disciplinary hearing is not measured by a fixed statutory number of hours. The Labour Relations Act (LRA) requires a dismissal to be for a fair reason and in accordance with a fair procedure, with the Code of Good Practice: Dismissal explaining what that means in practice.

The current Code of Practice: Dismissal, issued under the LRA and effective from 4 September 2025, confirms that the Code is intentionally general and that each case must be assessed on its own facts. It also emphasises mutual respect, employment justice, efficient business operations and the expeditious resolution of disputes.

Adequate Notice in Practice

The core requirements are that the employee must be told charges they face and what they have to defend against, and must be given a reasonable opportunity to prepare and respond. In the misconduct context, procedural fairness requires the employer to notify the employee of the allegations in a form and language that the employee can reasonably understand, allow reasonable preparation time, permit assistance by a trade union representative (shop steward) or fellow employee, give the employee an opportunity to state a case, and communicate the outcome. The notice should therefore do more than merely state that a hearing will occur; it should identify the charges, the date, time and venue or platform, the possible seriousness of the allegations, and the employee’s procedural rights.

As a rule of thumb, many workplaces use 48 hours’ notice as a minimum starting point, and this is also reflected in practical CCMA/BUSA SME (Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration/Business Unity South Africa Small and Medium-size Enterprises) guidance, which states that 48 hours is usually sufficient but should be extended in complex matters. However, this should not be treated as a rigid rule. The real question is whether the notice period was reasonable in the circumstances. A straightforward charge, limited documentation and readily available witnesses may justify shorter notice; complex allegations involving fraud, multiple incidents, technical evidence, extensive documents, Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) footage, or several witnesses will usually require more time.

Lessons from Case Law

The Labour Court’s decision in Umbhaba Estates (Pty) Ltd v Singwane and Others illustrates the contextual nature of the enquiry. In that case, the employee was given 24 hours’ notice. The employer’s evidence was that the charges were not complex, the employee indicated that he was ready to proceed, and he did not raise short notice as an issue during the disciplinary hearing or arbitration. The Labour Court criticised the arbitrator for raising the alleged short notice issue when it had not been raised by the employee, demonstrating that short notice is not automatically unfair where the employee had a fair opportunity to prepare.

In National Union of Metalworkers of SA & Others v Lasher Tools (Pty) Ltd (1994) 15 ILJ 169 (IC), employees were given three to four hours between an informal and formal hearings regarding their participation in a stay-away, and the Court found that this was not an adequate time for the employees to consider their positions, particularly in light of the possibility of dismissal.

In Metal & Electrical Workers Union of SA on Behalf of Mashiloane & Others and Micro Electrical Power Devices (Pty) Ltd (2012) 33 ILJ 2244 (BCA), the employees’ representative was not available on the date scheduled for the hearing, and could only attend in two weeks’ time, which the chairperson found unreasonable. He refused to grant postponement and gave the employees only 30 minutes to secure alternative representation. The arbitrator found that 30 minutes was an unreasonably short period to find alternative representation.

In Trauschweitzer v Robert Skok Welding (Pty) Ltd t/a Skok Machine Tools (1991) 12 ILJ 1099 (IC), the Court ruled that it was unreasonable to afford an employee only 15 minutes notice to attend a hearing, even though the employee was senior, and the hearing came after a series of discussions regarding the misconduct. The fact that the employee did not ask for postponement did not cure the procedural unfairness.

Employers should also remember that adequate notice is linked to the clarity of the charges. A vague charge can undermine preparation even if the employee receives several days’ notice. In Le Roux and GWK Ltd, an arbitrator found that a charge framed as “breakdown of the trust relationship” was vague and confusing because the breakdown of trust is usually the consequence of misconduct, not the misconduct itself. Conversely, charges need not be drafted with the precision of a criminal indictment. The focus is whether the employee understood the nature and importance or seriousness of the allegations sufficiently to answer them.

Case law also cautions against over-formalising workplace discipline. In Avril Elizabeth Home for the Mentally Handicapped v CCMA and Others, the Labour Court stressed that disciplinary proceedings under the LRA are not intended to mirror criminal trials; the purpose is to allow a fair opportunity for dialogue and response, rather than to impose unnecessarily technical procedures on the workplace. This approach aligns with the modern Code’s flexible, context-sensitive approach, including recognition that small businesses may not always be able to conduct time-consuming, formal investigations or elaborate hearings.

Balancing Flexibility with Fairness

That said, flexibility does not mean informality at the expense of fairness. An employer should be able to prove that the notice was received, that the employee understood the allegations, and that the employee had enough time and information to prepare. Where the employee asks for a postponement because they genuinely need time to obtain representation, consider documents, secure witnesses or deal with illness, the chairperson should consider the request fairly.

At the same time, employers are not required to allow employees to derail proceedings. In Old Mutual Life Assurance Co SA Ltd v Gumbi, the Supreme Court of Appeal held that an employee’s deliberate absence from a disciplinary enquiry did not invalidate the dismissal, confirming that fairness must operate for both employer and employee.

Practical Guidance for Employers

For HR practitioners, the safest approach is to build reasonableness into the notice process. In ordinary misconduct matters, provide at least 48 hours where possible. Extend that period where the allegations are serious, complex or document-heavy. Attach or make available the key evidence which the employer intends to rely on. Ensure that the charges are plain, specific and linked to the workplace rule or standard allegedly breached. Record that the employee received the notice and understood their rights. If shorter notice is given, document why it was reasonable and ask the employee at the start of the hearing whether they are ready to proceed.

Importantly, if your disciplinary code or policy provides for a minimum amount of notice, it must be adhered to unless the employee agrees to a shorter period. Failure to adhere to your own policies and procedures will result in a finding of procedural unfairness.

Ultimately, adequate notice is not a box-ticking exercise but a practical expression of the employee’s right to be heard. A notice period will be adequate if, judged objectively and in context, it allowed the employee to understand the allegations, obtain permitted assistance, prepare a meaningful response, and participate fairly in the hearing.