Employer’s Right to Discipline an Employee Has No Expiry Date. The right to discipline an employee does not prescribe or expire with time. The judgment, delivered on 16 April 2025 in the matter of Public Investment Corporation v More and Others, has set a powerful legal precedent that is bound to impact workplace discipline procedures across the country.
This decision is a significant development for South African labour law, especially for HR professionals, managers, and legal advisors. The Labour Court made it unequivocally clear that employees cannot use the Prescription Act of 1969 to escape disciplinary action for past misconduct, no matter how much time has passed
Discipline After a Five-Year Gap
The case revolved around an employee who was dismissed in 2020, based on misconduct that occurred in 2015. At the heart of the misconduct was the employee’s recommendation to the company CEO to enter into a credit facility that differed from the terms approved by the investment panel. This deviation, though discovered years later, triggered disciplinary charges once identified.
During the disciplinary hearing, the employee raised a novel legal argument. She claimed that her misconduct amounted to a breach of her employment contract, which in turn constituted a “debt” under the Prescription Act. As per the Act, such debts prescribe (or lapse) if not acted upon within three years.
Based on this interpretation, she argued that since the misconduct was from five years earlier, the employer had lost the legal right to act against her.
CCMA Ruling Creates Confusion
While this argument was rejected during the internal disciplinary enquiry, it surprisingly succeeded at the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA). The CCMA Commissioner found in the employee’s favour, stating that the employer’s right to discipline had expired under the Prescription Act, thereby rendering her dismissal unfair.
This CCMA ruling alarmed many in the employer community and introduced uncertainty about long-delayed discipline. The employer decided to challenge the decision by taking the matter to the Labour Court for judicial review.
Labour Court Sets the Record Straight
The Labour Court decisively overturned the CCMA’s ruling, providing a detailed judgment that drew important distinctions between debt collection and workplace discipline.
Below is a table summarising the key legal clarifications made by the Labour Court:
| Legal Principle | Labour Court’s Clarification |
|---|---|
| Prescription Act applicability | The Act does not apply to internal disciplinary procedures. |
| What constitutes a “debt” | Misconduct is not a debt. Disciplinary action is about fairness, not contractual claims. |
| Use of legal process in internal hearings | Disciplinary charge sheets are not formal legal processes (e.g., summons, notices of motion). |
| Role of fairness in labour law | Disciplinary action is governed by labour law, not the law of contract. |
| Delays in disciplinary action | Employers must act swiftly to avoid claims of unfairness or prejudice. |
Disciplinary Action Is Not a Debt Claim
The Court found that disciplinary processes are not about collecting a debt. Rather, they are administrative actions grounded in the principles of fairness and justice embedded in labour legislation. Misconduct is a matter of internal conduct, not a matter to be addressed through the debt collection framework of the Prescription Act.
Section 15 of the Act, which outlines how prescription is interrupted through formal legal processes like court summonses, does not apply to disciplinary hearings. Nor does Section 17, which allows a defence of prescription only in formal court proceedings.
Timely Action Still Essential: No Licence for Delay
While the judgment confirms that an employer’s right to discipline does not prescribe, it does not grant unlimited freedom to delay action. Employers must still act as soon as reasonably possible after discovering misconduct. Any unexplained or unreasonable delay can:
- Weaken the employer’s case,
- Lead to claims that the misconduct was condoned, and
- Prejudice the employee’s ability to defend themselves.
Such delays could result in a finding that the dismissal was procedurally or substantively unfair, even if the right to discipline remains intact in principle.
Employers in South Africa
Here are the practical implications and key lessons employers should draw from this ruling:
| Implication | Practical Employer Guidance |
|---|---|
| Right to discipline does not expire | Employers can act on misconduct even after a delay, if justified. |
| The Prescription Act cannot be used as a defence | Misconduct is not a “debt”—so the Act is irrelevant in disciplinary proceedings. |
| Internal disciplinary charges are not legal summonses | The formalities required under the Act do not apply to workplace processes. |
| Act promptly when misconduct is discovered | Avoid unnecessary delays to ensure fair procedure and outcome. |
| Ensure discipline is rooted in fairness, not retaliation | Follow labour law procedures carefully to ensure dismissals hold up legally. |
Conclusion
The Labour Court has given employers a powerful tool to uphold discipline in the workplace—confirming that the right to discipline an employee does not expire, regardless of how much time has passed since the misconduct occurred.
