Zimpapers Logo

Davis Ndumiso Sibanda
MANY employers lose disciplinary cases due to ignorance of discipline law and as a result, lost cases turn out to be very expensive for the employer.

The starting problem is that many employer representatives who participate in the disciplinary process are not trained in discipline handling.

If they had any training it was basic training on generic issues in discipline thus they mishandle disciplinary cases. In some instances, the problem is worsened by having human resources managers who studied human resources but labour law and discipline law were never covered in their curriculum thus they give poisonous advice which results in cases being lost.

However, there are cases where the Human Resources practitioner’s advice is ignored or is not sought at all because he is too junior or internal politics creates a blanket of suspicion over his advice.

The starting point is for employers to accept that unless properly trained, in the application of the code of conduct and discipline law, they cannot be reasonably expected to administer discipline in a just, fair and procedurally correct manner.

Not long ago, I dealt with a case where the employer had cited six offences in a charge sheet against an employee.

However, all the six were based on the same evidence. This obviously is not the correct way to raise charges and as the matter progresses upwards, it is likely to move from substantive issues to procedural issues, which are obviously prejudicial to the employee and could easily allow the employee to raise an allegation of victimisation.

I have seen also cases where the conduct of the hearing itself lacks integrity at statements made by the chairperson and employer representative in the disciplinary committee clearly create a measure of prejudice against an employee.

In worse cases, the secretary also participates in the hearing further complicating the process.

There are also cases where hearings have lasted long hours into days.  This clearly is a demonstration of ignorance of how a disciplinary hearing should be conducted and it tells the employer that there is a need for training of all those who preside over disciplinary hearings.

I have seen cases where evidence of misconduct is either non-existent or fails to reach the threshold of proof on balance of probability but the employer proceeds to find the employee guilty.

I recall a case where both the finance manager and accountant had keys to the safe and when money that was in the safe went missing, the finance manager charged the accountant and argued he could not have stolen the money despite the fact that they had both accessed the safe during the period in question and the accountant denied any wrongdoing, blaming the finance manager for the theft.

Surely in such a case, the organisation should accept that allowing two people to have the keys was a system failure and the accountant cannot be blamed. There are many decided cases on this principle.

In conclusion, discipline handling should not be the responsibility of untrained people. The benefits for the employer could be short lived.

Davies Ndumiso Sibanda can be contacted on:
email: [email protected] Or cell No: 0772 375 235