4. Case Review 9.1 Notice of Disciplinary Hearing - Page 300 Pretoria Society for the Care of the Retarded v Loots [Labour Appeal Court: June 1997] Background This case was brought by a Mrs Loots, who alleged that she had been unfairly dismissed. Among the arguments put forward by her counsel was the manner in which Loots was notified of the disciplinary hearing. In summoning Loots to a disciplinary hearing, the Society presented her with a list of alleged transgressions, namely: Unsatisfactory productivity Failing to respond to advice and improve attitude Offensive behaviour Sowing suspicion among senior staff Complaining about weekend duties Failing to buy kitchen equipment Making unfounded accusations that management would not allow said purchases to be made Making an unfounded allegation that the manager and deputy manager were too busy with their personal matters to speak to the employee (Loots) Warning a candidate during an interview against Mrs Theron and Mrs Roets In addition, there were, attached to the charges, six factors which were described as 'aggravating circumstances', one of these being that the relationship had irretrievably broken down. Loots had written to management requesting further particulars regarding the alleged transgressions. Her request was refused. Before receiving the notice of the hearing, Loots had been summarily suspended. Without being given any reason for the instruction, she had been told to remove the possessions she needed from her office and to bring the keys to the manager. Pronouncements The Court described the fact that there were so many charges as an attempt to 'thrown the book' at Loots. It noted that most of the issues should have been dealt with by a process of progressive discipline. Before receiving the notice of the hearing, Loots had been summarily suspended. Without being given any reason for the instruction, she had been told to remove the possessions she needed from her office and to bring the keys to the manager. Pronouncements The Court described the fact that there were so many charges as an attempt to 'thrown the book' at Loots. It noted that most of the issues should have been dealt with by a process of progressive discipline. The refusal to provide Loots with any further particulars was described as 'a manifestly unfair way to proceed'. The Court went on to explain: 'In order to properly prepare, the respondent needed to know details of the various charges before the hearing as she would need to know what documents to have available and also what other evidence she would require to prove her case. She would undoubtedly also require the information to know what witnesses to call'. The Court found the matter of the suspension 'particularly troublesome' and expressed the opinion that Loots had 'been treated most insensitively'. Noting that Loots had not been given a hearing before she was suspended, the Court explained: 'The suspension of an employee has profound emotional, social and financial effects on him/her' and that 'suspension is a serious matter, more especially for a person in a senior position'. Discussion The pronouncements by the Court support the principle that employees should not be suspended without good reason, that allegations should be carefully framed and that a whole series of unrelated allegations do not strengthen the employer's case. Furthermore, the case proves that allegations need to be substantiated. This employee needed, for example, to know why she was being accused of 'offensive behaviour'. The notice of disciplinary hearing should have been phrased as follows: 'It is alleged that you engaged in offensive behaviour in that on (date) you (action which led to the allegation). [Refer example in text book page 302]