Quick answer
Use the first consultation to obtain a written decision framework, not a prediction. Ask the labour lawyer to identify the termination date, governing reason, correct council or CCMA route, earliest filing date, decisive evidence, realistic remedy and first priced task. Then test how the 2025 dismissal Code, the Labour Relations Act and the facts of the hearing affect substantive and procedural fairness.
How to use this guide
A useful question agenda starts with jurisdiction and time, moves to the employer's case and the employee's response, and ends with scope, representation and cost. It should reveal adverse facts as well as supportive ones.
1. What event and date control the referral?
Give the lawyer the charge notice, outcome, dismissal letter, last payslip, internal appeal and every delivery record. Ask which event amounts to dismissal under section 190 and whether a later employer decision qualifies under section 191. Request the actual date calculation in writing.
Do not ask only, “Do I have thirty days?” The better questions are: Thirty days for which dispute, from which event, filed with which institution, and was there a final decision that changes the trigger? If the earliest plausible date has passed, ask what evidence a condonation application would need and who will prepare it.
2. Which institution has jurisdiction?
Ask whether a bargaining council covers the employer, sector, workplace and dispute. Provide the collective agreement, union details and employer's registered identity if available. If coverage is uncertain, ask who will verify the council's registered scope before filing.
Where the CCMA is the likely forum, confirm whether the statutory claim goes to arbitration after conciliation or to the Labour Court. If there is a possible discrimination, protected-disclosure, contractual or automatically unfair issue, require a separate route analysis rather than a list of impressive labels.
3. What was the real reason for dismissal?
Invite the lawyer to state the employer's alleged reason in one sentence and the competing employee case in another. Ask whether the evidence supports misconduct, incapacity, operational requirements or a different principal reason. The legal route follows that classification.
If retaliation is alleged, ask what protected act or status preceded dismissal, who knew about it and what proves the causal link. Timing can support an inference, but timing alone may not establish the reason. Ask what contradictory facts would weaken the proposed characterisation.
4. Which fairness questions arise under the current Code?
For an alleged misconduct dismissal, ask:
- What workplace rule or standard applied?
- Was it valid and reasonable in the setting?
- How was the employee expected to know it?
- What conduct is actually proved?
- Was the rule enforced consistently?
- Why was dismissal selected instead of a lesser response?
- Did the process give a genuine opportunity to answer?
The Code of Practice: Dismissal published in September 2025 is the current guidance source for present cases. Ask whether the relevant events occurred before its commencement and, if so, which historical material applies. Avoid a consultation that quotes the former Schedule 8 as though it were still the operative current code.
5. How will sanction fairness be assessed?
Ask the lawyer to apply Sidumo v Rustenburg Platinum Mines to the actual record. The inquiry considers all the circumstances rather than automatically deferring to the chairperson or employer. Request an explanation of the factors that matter most in this case: seriousness, harm, consistency, service, record, role, remorse, correction and trust.
Challenge both extremes. “I had long service” is not a complete defence, and “the employer lost trust” is not self-proving. Ask what contemporaneous evidence supports the alleged breakdown and whether comparable cases were genuinely similar.
6. Did the hearing provide a fair opportunity to respond?
Procedure is not tested by counting forms. Ask whether the employee understood the allegations, had reasonable preparation time, could state a case, challenge material evidence and receive an outcome. Bring requests for postponement, interpreter needs, representation rulings, hearing recordings and written objections.
Ask whether an irregularity caused practical prejudice and what could have changed if the process had been fair. Do not assume that a procedural defect automatically produces reinstatement or that a polished hearing cures an unsupported reason.
7. What evidence should be preserved next?
Request a ranked list divided into essential, useful and optional. Essential material will usually establish employment, the allegation, process, decision and dates. Useful material may address rules, training, consistency, witnesses, mitigation or sanction. Optional background should not bury the documents that determine filing and route.
Ask how to obtain missing policies or hearing records lawfully. Do not download confidential company data, access a former colleague's account or alter a document to add context. A separate dated recollection can explain a gap without being presented as a contemporaneous note.
8. Which remedy is realistic on these facts?
Ask whether reinstatement, re-employment or compensation is legally available and factually plausible. Discuss current work, income after dismissal, workplace relationships, the employee's desire to return and any evidence of impracticability or intolerability. A remedy assessment should state assumptions, not promise a number.
If settlement is considered, ask who can bind the employer, what deductions or tax treatment require confirmation, and how reference, record, confidentiality, withdrawal and payment-default terms will work. Do not value the case from gross salary alone.
9. What representation is permitted?
Ask whether the lawyer may attend conciliation, arbitration or any later Labour Court process. CCMA Rule 25 places limits on legal representation in specified settings, especially certain conduct- or capacity-based dismissal arbitrations, while allowing defined exceptions and discretionary applications.
Clarify the service even if appearance is restricted. The mandate can cover evidence analysis, referral wording, witness preparation, settlement review or a representation application. Identify exactly which deliverable is purchased.
10. How will scope, cost and responsibility be controlled?
Request the responsible practitioner, first output, estimated fee basis, deposit, disbursements, approval threshold, communication method and exclusions. Ask whether the current instruction includes filing and service or only advice. A meeting booking does not move the deadline responsibility automatically.
End with a one-page advice note listing the chosen route, alternative route, filing date, evidence gaps, immediate action and trigger for reassessment. That product is more useful than an optimistic oral conclusion and allows the employee to act even if full representation is unaffordable.
Important limitation
This is general South African labour-law information, not legal advice or a calculation of any person's deadline. For a dismissal following a disciplinary hearing, employment status, collective agreements, public-sector rules, protected grounds and the exact event date can change the route. A consultation answer is only as reliable as the facts disclosed, and no responsible practitioner can promise a labour outcome.
FAQs
What should I ask before discussing the merits?
Ask which date, forum and legal category apply, because a good merits discussion cannot repair a missed referral period or wrong jurisdiction.
Should I ask for a guaranteed outcome?
No. Ask for assumptions, evidence gaps, route options, risks and a staged estimate. Responsible advice cannot guarantee a labour outcome.
How can I control legal costs?
Agree on the first deliverable, included work, approval for disbursements, reporting frequency and the event that triggers a new estimate.
Can I consult before the file is complete?
Yes. Send the triggering document, a short chronology and the next deadline so immediate risk can be assessed while missing records are identified.
Related Lexuno paths
Related articles
Source notes
Legal note
This article is general legal information for South African readers. It is not legal advice. Speak to a qualified legal professional about your specific facts before taking action.