Rust v Royalyard Holdings 11 (Proprietary) Limited and Another (J4380/01) [2001] ZALC 162 (8 October 2001)

Rust v Royalyard Holdings 11 (Proprietary) Limited and Another (J4380/01) [2001] ZALC 162 (8 October 2001)

The court held that, in the absence of a disciplinary code or agreement regulating representation, it would be unfair for the employer to prevent the chairperson from exercising discretion to consider an application for legal representation. The unilateral notice issued by the employer did not constitute a binding term of employment and could not strip the chairperson of this discretion. Denying the chairperson the ability to consider such applications would be contrary to the audi alteram partem principle, as it would prevent the employee from being heard and the chairperson from hearing the employee on the issue. The court therefore ordered that the chairperson be permitted to exercise...

Citation
[2001] ZALC 162
Parties
Applicant: Andre Francois Rust; Respondent: Royalyard Holdings 11 (Proprietary) Limited; Respondent: Andrew Redding
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 October 2001
Case Number
J4380/01
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interim Relief Application Before Disciplinary Hearing
Outcome
Application granted in part; order issued permitting the chairperson to exercise discretion regarding legal representation.
Judges
E Revelas
Legal Topics
Disciplinary Hearing Procedure, Legal Representation, Audi Alteram Partem, Employment Contract Terms
Labour Law Disciplinary Hearing Procedure Legal Representation Audi Alteram Partem Employment Contract Terms

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andre Francois Rust

Applicant

Royalyard Holdings 11 (Proprietary) Limited

Respondent

Andrew Redding

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Interim Relief Application Before Disciplinary Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the chairperson of a disciplinary hearing may exercise discretion to allow legal representation in the absence of a disciplinary code.
  2. 2 Whether an employer may unilaterally preclude legal representation at a disciplinary hearing by written notice.
  3. 3 Whether denying the chairperson discretion to consider legal representation is contrary to the audi alteram partem principle.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, in the absence of a disciplinary code or agreement regulating representation, it would be unfair for the employer to prevent the chairperson from exercising discretion to consider an application for legal representation. The unilateral notice issued by the employer did not constitute a binding term of employment and could not strip the chairperson of this discretion. Denying the chairperson the ability to consider such applications would be contrary to the audi alteram partem principle, as it would prevent the employee from being heard and the chairperson from hearing the employee on the issue. The court therefore ordered that the chairperson be permitted to exercise...

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; order issued permitting the chairperson to exercise discretion regarding legal representation.

Orders

  • The second respondent (or any other chairperson in his stead) is directed to exercise discretion on whether to allow the applicant legal representation at the disciplinary hearing scheduled for 8 October 2001 or any other date that it may be held.