The employee in this matter received a final written warning for misconduct relating to the breaching of safety regulations on the employer's Wonderkop Ferrochrome Smelter. Not satisfied with the outcome, the employer instituted a second inquiry hearing against the employee and dismissed the employee. The employer held the second inquiry hearing because the employee was already on a final written warning for a similar misconduct at the time of the initial disciplinary inquiry. The employer was of the view that the chairperson of the initial disciplinary inquiry erred by not taking the existing final written warning into account.
This article is primarily aimed at examining whether the s 100 intervention approved by Cabinet earlier this year, and confirmed among others, by the Department of Cooperative Governance and National Treasury, is indeed an intervention as envisaged in s 100 of the Constitution.