Implementing discipline as soon as possible is necessary to maximize its corrective effect. This does not imply that an immediate disciplinary procedure is required, but it does require that unnecessary delays must be avoided from both a psychological and legal perspective.
The psychological principle is that the closer the corrective action or discipline is applied to the wrongdoing, the bigger the impact. This is because:
- In the offender’s perception, the relationship establishes a direct and obvious link between the wrongdoing and the discipline.
- This helps the employee understand that misconduct will result in a negative consequence.
From a legal standpoint, unnecessary delays can also lead to a process that can be claimed to be procedurally unfair. This risk is increased when the employer’s Disciplinary Code prescribes a period within which the employer must institute disciplinary hearings. Moreover, undue delays in bringing in the charges can result in the perception that the charges are based on a hidden agenda and that the employer ”is looking for reasons to get rid of me”.
Depending on the period and reason for the delay, the Chairperson, the Commissioner of the CCMA or the Court may rule that the disciplinary charges have been dismissed. In the case of Van Eyk v the Minister of Correctional Services (2005, 6 BLLR 639) the employee was charged with fraud almost two (2) years after the fraudulent transactions allegedly took place. As a result, the Eastern Cape High Court ruled that the disciplinary charges had fall off.
The general rule is that a disciplinary inquiry must take place within a reasonable time after the alleged misconduct occurred, or at least as soon as possible from the time when the employer got wind of it.
It is advisable to contact a reputable Labour Law Practitioner for any labour or employment- and discplinary related enquiries.