The goal of a precautionary suspension of an employee is mainly to remove further risk to an Employer in
instances where disciplinary action is contemplated. The circumstances may differ from case to case. Reasons
for a suspension can include that the Employee may jeopardise an investigation; endanger the wellbeing or
safety of a person; interfere with potential witnesses; his presence or actions may bring the Employer’s name
into disrepute; the potential of committing further acts of misconduct or causing instability in the workplace.
Section 186(2)(2) of the Labour Relations Act defines an “unfair labour practice” as any unfair act or omission
that arises between an Employer and Employee involving inter alia the unfair suspension of an Employee.
It follows that the challenge of a suspension in terms of Section 186(2) of the LRA usually attacks the fairness
of the suspension. Suspension must meet the requirements of both substantive and procedural fairness. In
Mogothle vs Premier of the North West Province and another (2009) 4 BLLR 331 (LC) it was noted by the
Labour Court that the suspension of the Employee pending an enquiry into alleged misconduct is equivalent to
an arrest, therefore there should be a reasonable apprehension by the Employer that the Employee will
interfere with the investigation or pose a threat of some kind.

It is required for an Employer to continue to remunerate an Employee whilst on precautionary suspension.
In the Constitutional Court case of Long vs South African Breweries and others, the court had to decide
whether there is a fairness requirement of a pre-suspension hearing in the instance of a precautionary
suspension. In this case, Mr Alan Long, the District Manager of SAB, was responsible to ensure that SAB’s
vehicle fleet in his district complied with all legal requirements. SAB’s vehicle fleet however had fallen into
disrepair and became unroadworthy and unlicensed due to fraudulent activities. Notwithstanding Mr Long
being informed of problems relating to the fleet, SAB found subsequently that problems persisted. Mr Long
was placed on precautionary suspension without a pre-suspension hearing and informed that he was
investigated for dereliction of duties and gross negligence. After the suspension and following a disciplinary
hearing, Mr Long was dismissed for gross dereliction of duties, gross negligence and bringing the company
name in disrepute.

The Constitutional Court specifically found that:

The suspension of Mr Long was for a fair reason. In this instance, for an investigation to take place.
Where a suspension is precautionary and not punitive or causing undue prejudice to the Employee, then there
is no requirement to allow the Employee to make representations and therefore the Employer was not obliged
to hold a pre-suspension hearing.

Conclusion:

A precautionary suspension is a powerful tool available to the Employer. By imposing it, the Employer acts
unilaterally and it serves as a prelude to possible disciplinary action. If it is therefore in the interest of the
employer to have the employee NOT in the workplace while investigating offence this tool can be used very
effectively.

1. To pass the unfair labour practice test set in Section 186(2)(2), the Employer should still be guided by the
   important points of fairness:
2. The Employer must assess whether there is a fair reason for the suspension and secondly whether it
   will prejudice the Employee.
3. Suspension on full pay will improve the prejudice that the Employee may suffer in these instances.
4.  Suspension should not be for an unreasonable period and the Employer must be able to justify the
   period of suspension.