Presiding officers in disciplinary hearings are often laypersons, and their decisions must be viewed in that light.
In the recent matter of Department of Health, Western Cape v Twalo and Another [2022] 8 BLLR 741 (LC), the Labour Court held that it is not necessarily reviewable if a commissioner or presiding officer cannot give reasons and especially if the decision follows findings already made in the award or ruling or are self-explanatory. Decisions lacking reasons so that the rationale cannot be determined from other findings or is not self-explanatory stand to be reviewed.
Where findings are self-evident, they need not give reasons at all. However, presiding officers must explain their findings on issues critical to the dispute, even if it is only briefly.
The Court further held that although brief reasons will suffice, the failure to deal with each component of the dispute, important facets of the dispute, and factors of great significance or critical to the dispute that may give rise to the interference that a decision-maker failed to apply his or her mind to these factors and, if the failure caused the unsuccessful party to lose, the decision could be seen as being unreasonable.
To find out how SEESA can help your business visit our website at:
#TeamSEESA