Invictus Group

Years have passed since the alleged misconduct. Has the employer lost the right to take disciplinary action?

Not automatically.

In De Wet v CCMA and Others, the Labour Court considered whether a substantial delay in disciplinary proceedings amounted to a waiver of the employer’s right to discipline and whether it rendered a precautionary suspension unfair.
The judgment highlights that the passage of time alone is not decisive.

Employers should consider:
• The reason for the delay
• Whether their conduct demonstrates that the matter was still being pursued
• Whether the delay has materially prejudiced the employee’s ability to present a defence
• Whether a precautionary suspension continues to serve a legitimate purpose

For employers, the key is not simply how much time has passed, but what happened during that time and whether the process remains fair.

Our latest article unpacks the judgment and the practical implications for employers.
Read the full article: 🔗 www.invictusgroup.co.za

𝗬𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗘𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗘𝗾𝘂𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗣𝗹𝗮𝗻 𝗶𝘀 𝗳𝗶𝗹𝗲𝗱. 𝗬𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘀𝘂𝗯𝗺𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗱. 𝗕𝘂𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝘆 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴?

A year into the amended Employment Equity framework, compliance is about more than completing an annual reporting exercise.

The Department of Employment and Labour reported 1,948 Employment Equity inspections and reviews during the 2025/26 financial year; only 181 employers — approximately 9% — were found compliant.

For designated employers, the bigger question is whether Employment Equity influences the decisions that shape the workforce — from recruitment and promotion to skills development, succession planning and disability representation.

And when a target isn’t achieved, can your organisation demonstrate why — and what action was taken?

Our latest article examines what the amended framework means in practice and why an effective EE strategy must extend beyond compliance on paper.

𝗪𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗘𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗘𝗾𝘂𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝘆 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝗰𝗿𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗻𝘆 𝘁𝗼𝗱𝗮𝘆?

Read the full article: 🔗 www.invictusgroup.co.za

𝐘𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐲𝐞𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞. 𝐀𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧. 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧.

At what point does persistent late-coming become serious enough to justify dismissal?

Repeated lateness can disrupt staffing, affect productivity and customer service, and place pressure on the rest of the team. But persistent late-coming 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚𝐮𝐭𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐚𝐥 𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐫.

A recent Labour Court judgment highlights why employers need to look beyond the number of late arrivals and consider the evidence, the employee’s role, previous disciplinary action, operational impact and the circumstances as a whole.

For employers, the key question is not simply “𝐇𝐨𝐰 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞𝐬 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞?”

It is whether the misconduct, viewed in context, makes dismissal an appropriate and proportionate sanction.

Our latest article looks at what employers should consider when persistent late-coming becomes a disciplinary issue — and the lessons arising from the Labour Court’s decision.

𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐮𝐥𝐥 𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐥𝐞 -> www.invictusgroup.co.za

Your employee is accused of serious misconduct — but the person who made the allegation won’t testify.

𝗖𝗮𝗻 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗿𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝗼𝗻 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝘀𝗮𝗶𝗱?

Hearsay evidence is not automatically inadmissible in disciplinary and CCMA proceedings. But relying on second-hand evidence is not as straightforward as it may seem.

The Labour Appeal Court’s decision in Exxaro Coal v Chipana provides important guidance on how hearsay evidence should be approached — and why simply accepting or rejecting it could create problems.

For employers and disciplinary chairpersons, an important question remains:

𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀𝗮𝘆 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗯𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗲𝗱 𝘂𝗽𝗼𝗻 — 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗵𝗼𝘄 𝗺𝘂𝗰𝗵 𝘄𝗲𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗶𝘁 𝗰𝗮𝗿𝗿𝘆 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗹 𝗶𝘀 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲?

Our latest article unpacks what employers need to know.

Read the full article:
🔗 www.invictusgroup.co.za/hearsay-evidence-in-dismissal-proceedings/

𝐘𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐲𝐞𝐞 𝐣𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐬 𝐚 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐨𝐫. 𝐘𝐨𝐮 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐞. 𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐬 𝐧𝐞𝐱𝐭?

For employers, having a signed agreement is only part of the picture.

A recent Labour Court judgment highlights that restraint of trade enforceability depends on whether there is a legitimate business interest requiring protection and whether the restraint itself is reasonable.

Confidential information, customer and supplier relationships, and commercially sensitive information may all warrant protection. But the scope, duration and employee’s role also matter.

Swipe through for the key considerations, then read our latest article where we unpack the Vanhattan judgment and what it means for South African employers.

𝐖𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐮𝐩 𝐢𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭?

🔗 Read the full article -> www.invictusgroup.co.za

𝗙𝗶𝘅𝗲𝗱-𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗺 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘀 𝗴𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗲𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗳𝗹𝗲𝘅𝗶𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 — 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺 𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗹𝘆?

A fixed end date does not necessarily mean an employer is protected from further legal consequences.

Repeated renewals, reasonable expectations of continued employment, poorly documented justifications and misconceptions around the three-month rule can all create unexpected risk for employers.

Section 198B of the Labour Relations Act places specific requirements on the use of fixed-term contracts in certain circumstances — and some common practices may not provide the protection employers assume they do.

In our latest article, we unpack 5 fixed-term contract mistakes employers still make and what businesses should consider before issuing or renewing their next contract.

𝗜𝘀 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗯𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗴𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗶𝘅𝗲𝗱-𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗺 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘀 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁?

Read the full article:
🔗 https://invictusgroup.co.za/fixed-term-contracts-in-south-africa/

A final written warning has been issued. The employee commits another offence. 𝗖𝗮𝗻 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺?

Not automatically.

The Code of Good Practice on Dismissal, 2025 reinforces the principle of progressive discipline — giving employees a reasonable opportunity to correct unacceptable conduct before dismissal is considered, except where misconduct is sufficiently serious.

For employers, getting the disciplinary process right matters. Warnings should be applied fairly and consistently, and even where a final written warning is in place, dismissal must still be assessed on the circumstances of the case.

Our latest article looks at progressive discipline and disciplinary warnings, including:
• The purpose of final written warnings
• What happens when an employee refuses to sign a warning
• How previous and expired warnings may be considered
• The importance of consistency in disciplinary action
• When dismissal may ultimately be an appropriate sanction

𝗥𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝘂𝗹𝗹 𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗹𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗲𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗲 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲: 🔗 https://invictusgroup.co.za/progressive-discipline-disciplinary-warnings/

If an employee finds someone to cover their shift, are they still absent?

The short answer: potentially, yes.

Finding a replacement may keep the shift covered, but it does not automatically excuse an employee from their own attendance obligations — particularly where the employer’s required approval process was not followed.

In our latest article, we look at unauthorised absence, shift swaps and why operational coverage and individual employee accountability are two separate issues.
For employers, the takeaway is clear: attendance and shift-change procedures need to be clearly communicated, consistently applied and properly enforced.

Read the full article to understand what this means for employers and workplace discipline: 🔗 www.invictusgroup.co.za/unauthorised-absence/

𝗪𝗵𝗼 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗮 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗶𝗿𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗼𝗻 𝗯𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘃𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗲𝗹𝗹 𝗱𝗶𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀?

In workplace hearings, the answer isn’t simply the person who appears the most confident.

South African labour law requires chairpersons to assess credibility, reliability and the overall probabilities before reaching a finding.

Our latest article explores the legal principles that help ensure disciplinary decisions are fair, objective and capable of withstanding scrutiny.

Read the full article here:
🔗 https://invictusgroup.co.za/witness-credibility-disciplinary-hearings/

Many employers believe they can recover overpayments, unpaid leave or other losses by simply deducting money from an employee’s remuneration. However, South African law places strict limits on when this is permitted.

A recent High Court judgment has reaffirmed that employers cannot resort to “self-help” when making salary deductions and must follow the legal processes set out in Section 34 of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act.

In our latest article, we unpack what this judgment means for employers, explain the legal requirements for salary deductions, and share practical guidance to help businesses remain compliant.

Read the full article:
🔗 https://invictusgroup.co.za/unlawful-salary-deductions/