When artificial intelligence derails workplace discipline
The increasing use of artificial intelligence in legal and workplace processes promises greater efficiency and faster access to information. However, a recent Labour Court judgment serves as a timely warning that technology cannot replace the independent application of mind required from decision-makers.
In Molawa and Others v Matjhabeng Local Municipality, the Labour Court intervened in an ongoing disciplinary hearing, staying the proceedings pending the determination of a review application. The judgment arose from concerns that the chairperson of the disciplinary hearing had relied on legal authorities that either did not exist or did not support the legal propositions for which they were cited.
Although Labour Courts are generally reluctant to interfere in incomplete disciplinary proceedings, this case demonstrates that intervention may be justified where there are serious concerns about the integrity of the disciplinary process itself.
Background
The employees faced disciplinary charges dating back to 2021. After various procedural developments and litigation, the employer sought to proceed with the disciplinary hearing. The employees challenged certain rulings made by the chairperson and ultimately launched review proceedings. When the hearing was scheduled to continue, the employees approached the Labour Court urgently to stay the disciplinary process pending the outcome of the review.
The central concern related to legal authorities cited by the chairperson in support of his ruling. The employees alleged that some of the authorities either did not exist or were incorrectly relied upon. The Labour Court examined the cited cases and found that certain authorities referred to by the chairperson did not exist under the reported citations, while another case did not support the proposition for which it had been cited.
The Court’s concerns regarding artificial intelligence
The Court stopped short of making a final finding that artificial intelligence had been used. However, it expressly acknowledged the possibility that the erroneous citations may have been generated by an artificial intelligence tool.
Importantly, the Court held that regardless of whether the inaccurate citations were generated by artificial intelligence or by the chairperson himself, there was prima facie evidence that he had failed to properly apply his mind to the legal issues before him.
What appears to have troubled the Court most was not merely the existence of incorrect authorities but the resulting concern regarding the reliability and legitimacy of the decision-making process.
Why the Court intervened
Labour Courts have consistently held that they will not readily intervene in incomplete disciplinary proceedings. Employees are generally expected to raise their concerns during the disciplinary process and challenge the outcome after the process has been completed.
However, the Court found that exceptional circumstances existed in this matter.
The Court considered that requiring the employees to continue with a disciplinary hearing chaired by an individual whose decision-making process was under serious scrutiny would not serve the interests of justice. The Court further accepted that if the review ultimately succeeded, all parties would have expended considerable time and resources on a disciplinary process that might later be invalidated.
The disciplinary hearing was therefore stayed pending the outcome of the review proceedings.
Why this judgment matters
This judgment is likely to have implications far beyond the parties involved.
First, it serves as a warning that decision-makers cannot rely blindly on artificial intelligence-generated content. Whether a ruling is prepared by a chairperson, lawyer, investigator, or human resources practitioner, the responsibility for verifying the accuracy of the material remains with the individual using it.
Second, the judgment reinforces the importance of credibility and competence in disciplinary proceedings. A disciplinary process is only as robust as the decision-maker who presides over it. Where there is a legitimate concern that a chairperson has failed to apply his or her mind independently, confidence in the entire process may be undermined.
Third, the judgment demonstrates that procedural integrity is not a technical consideration. It lies at the heart of a fair disciplinary process. Where the decision-making process itself is called into question, courts may be prepared to intervene before the disciplinary proceedings have run their course.
Finally, the judgment highlights the growing legal risks associated with the uncritical use of artificial intelligence in employment and legal settings. As organisations increasingly embrace technology, governance, verification and human oversight will become even more important.
Key takeaways for employers
Employers should carefully assess the suitability and competence of disciplinary chairpersons before appointments are made.
Artificial intelligence-generated material should never be relied upon without independent verification.
Employers should ensure that all authorities, legal principles, and references contained in disciplinary rulings are accurate and properly checked.
Where concerns arise regarding the integrity of a disciplinary process, employers should address them proactively rather than allowing them to escalate into litigation.
The judgment also serves as a reminder that procedural fairness encompasses not only the conduct of the hearing itself but also the quality and reliability of the decision-making process.
Key takeaways for employees and trade unions
Employees should scrutinise disciplinary rulings carefully and raise legitimate procedural concerns at the earliest opportunity.
Where there is evidence that a chairperson may not have independently applied his or her mind, those concerns should be properly documented and pursued through the appropriate channels.
The judgment confirms that although court intervention in ongoing disciplinary proceedings remains rare, exceptional circumstances may justify such intervention where fairness and the integrity of the process are at stake.
Key takeaways for labour lawyers and human resources professionals
Artificial intelligence should be viewed as a tool rather than a substitute for professional judgement.
Legal practitioners and human resources professionals remain responsible for ensuring that authorities, legal principles, and recommendations are accurate.
The judgment demonstrates that courts are likely to scrutinise not only the outcome of a decision but also the process through which it was reached.
As artificial intelligence becomes increasingly integrated into workplace processes, practitioners will need to exercise heightened caution, particularly when relying on generated legal content.
Conclusion
The significance of this judgment extends beyond disciplinary proceedings and labour law.
At its core, the case is about accountability. Technology may assist decision-makers, but it cannot replace the duty to think critically, verify information, and apply an independent mind to the issues under consideration.
The Labour Court has sent a clear message: accuracy, diligence and procedural integrity remain fundamental requirements of fair decision-making. In an era where artificial intelligence is becoming part of everyday professional practice, that message is likely to resonate far beyond the workplace.
For advice or more information on labour or employment matters, please contact Riona Kalua.