The document discusses an employee's right to request further particulars in a disciplinary inquiry. It notes that employees must be given sufficient opportunity to prepare their defense and understand the charges against them. This includes being provided documents used in the hearing and other relevant materials. If charges are vague, an employee can request further clarification or amplification of the particulars. The employer's refusal to provide these could violate the employee's fair trial rights under the Labor Relations Act and Constitution. A request for further particulars enables the employee to adequately prepare and should not simply be viewed as a delay tactic.

1. REQUESTING FURTHER PARTICULARS IN DISCIPLINARY INQUIRY (PRACTICE
NOTE 2/2016)
1. If a decision is reached to charge the employee for any misconduct , then a
charge with full particulars, and a request as to whether the employee admits or
denies the charges must be furnished to the employee1.
2. It is trite at law that an employee needs sufficient opportunity to prepare in order
for the disciplinary hearing to be fair in terms of the LRA and the Constitution.
3. Such employee right is premised on the following:
3.1. The right to sufficient time to prepare a defence: The rule of thumb is that
preparation time should be at least one full working day. However, depending
on the number and complexity of charges and on obstacles that may exist,
this preparation period may need to be extended within reason;
3.2. The right to fully understand the charges: Charges such as ‘dishonesty’ or
‘fraud’ are far too vague. Sufficient details are to be given to the employee to
make preparation realistically possible;
3.3. The right to documentation: The employer should provide the accused with
the documents it intends to use in the hearing as well as other relevant
documents requested by the employee.
4. The charges must be set out with sufficient particularity to inform him of what is
alleged to have been done.
5. The employee must also be given an opportunity to furnish a written explanation
in response to the charges leveled against him or her.
6. Where charges are not clear or amplified in terms of the disciplinary code, the
employee may request further particulars2
.
1
Section 186 of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (LRA) gives every employee the right not to be
unfairly dismissed or to be subjected to unfair labour practices. Schedule 8 of the LRA provides that “The
employee should be entitled to a reasonable time to prepare the response…

2. 7. Furthermore, if the charges were not sufficiently particularized and not
understandable, an employee may request for further particulars and even
further and better particulars3
.
8. Employers are often confronted with voluminous requests for information or
further particulars in relation to disciplinary charges levelled against an
employee. The kneejerk reaction of most employers to such requests is that this
is simply a delaying tactic initiated by the employee and/or his representative
trade union and should be ignored.
9. A request for further particulars is to enable the accused employee to prepare for
the hearing, which is an ingredient of the right to a fair trial. The principles of
natural justice demanded that a person facing such a hearing should be
furnished with such information reasonably required for the purposes of
preparation4
.
10. The test for the disclosure of such particulars is whether such information is
reasonably necessary for the employee to conduct his/her defence in relation to
the charges levelled against him/her.
11. By failing to deliver the further particulars, the employer would be in breach of
the LRA and the Constitution.
12.This may lead the employee seeking relief to interdict the inquiry from proceeding
in the absence of the so requested further particulars5
.
13.A disciplinary enquiry is designed to protect the employee and should not be
viewed in the same light as punishment or a violation of rights.
2
See section 23(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 108 of 1996, section 32 of the
Promotion of Access to Information Act 2 of 2000 (as amended) (PAIA) , and section 33 of the Promotion
of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 (PAJA).
3
See Mhlambi v Mathjabeng Municipality & Another (2003) 24 ILJ 1659.
4
See Coetzee v Financial Planning Institute of SA [2014] ZASCA 205 (28 November 2014). See also
Shabalala & Others v Attorney-General, Transvaal & Another [1995] ZACC 12; 1996 (1) SA 725 (CC).
5
The employee is entitled to final, urgent relief on the basis that the employer deprived the employee of
his right to, inter alia, the audi ulteram partem rule. The employee may further contend that there is no
protection available to him by way of an ordinary remedy to prevent his fundamental and constitutional
rights being violated.

3. 14.This right is linked to the recognition that an employee has a right to be properly
informed of the case the employer intends to prove against him or her so that he
or she can properly prepare his or her defence.
15.Thus there is a need and reasonable accommodation for entertaining a request
for further particulars by any employer.
MT KUFA
LLB, LLM (UNISA)
(Advocate of the High Court of South Africa)
Pretoria
11 April 2016