COLUMN: It is common practice worldwide that when employees commit reasonably serious transgressions, the employer may suspend the employee on full pay pending the outcome of a disciplinary enquiry to be held at a later date.
South Africa’s Labour Court supports this practice, provided the individual continues to receive full pay while not working.
However, disputes often arise regarding the legality of such suspensions. Most employers have disciplinary codes outlining the procedures to follow before suspending someone on full pay. Suspensions without pay are unacceptable and condemned by both the CCMA and Labour Courts.
The procedure for suspension is typically straightforward and requires the employer to state: “You are suspended on full pay pending the outcome of an investigation and a disciplinary hearing, which will be held in due course.”
Courts have endorsed this approach, and employers are no longer obligated to provide detailed reasons for suspensions unless their disciplinary codes specify otherwise. Employers must follow their own procedures if outlined in their codes. The suspension should not prejudice the employee, and if they earned commission or tips, these should be calculated based on the average of the last three months to determine the appropriate remuneration.
Suspensions on full pay can be costly, as the employee remains unproductive during this period. Private sector employers understand that prolonged suspensions are expensive, so they expedite investigations and disciplinary processes. The principle of “justice delayed is justice denied” underscores the need for swift action.
Employers generally suspend employees only when allegations are serious and avoid creating negative perceptions among colleagues about the suspended individual. It is advisable to inform staff that “the employee will not be at work until [date],” rather than tarnishing the employee's reputation before the enquiry. Suspensions are often necessary to ensure investigations remain unbiased and free from interference.
In the public sector, however, suspensions on full pay are frequently mishandled. Many civil servants remain on suspension for prolonged periods, sometimes exceeding a year, despite receiving their full salaries. This occurs even though government departments employ highly qualified human resource practitioners familiar with disciplinary procedures. In some cases, individuals are suspended for political reasons or without sufficient evidence to support the allegations.
For example, the Department of Employment and Labour has twice suspended the Unemployment Fund Commissioner. During the first suspension, which lasted nearly a year during COVID-19, the Commissioner returned to work after the allegations were unproven. Despite this, no explanation was given regarding the investigation or disciplinary process.
The Commissioner was later suspended again and has remained on full pay for several months without resolution. This pattern highlights the inefficiencies and lack of accountability in handling public sector suspensions.
* Micheal Bagraim is a veteran labour lawyer and Democratic Alliance.
** The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Independent Media
Do you have something on your mind; or want to comment on the big stories of the day? We would love to hear from you. Please send your letters to [email protected].
All letters to be considered for publication, must contain full names, addresses and contact details (not for publication)