CAN AI BE USED DURING A DISCIPLINARY HEARING?
Written by Limya Kamaldien
The short answer
Yes, AI may be used during a disciplinary hearing, but only in a limited and controlled manner. It should assist with administration or an unexpected issue; it should not replace preparation, generate evidence, coach witnesses or decide the outcome.
The question employers are asking
A representative is sitting in a disciplinary hearing and wants to use an AI tool to search for case law. The representative says that an issue has arisen unexpectedly and asks for time to research it.
Is this acceptable, or should the research have been completed before the hearing?
The answer depends on the circumstances. A representative should prepare the case, including the relevant legal research, before the hearing. However, a new issue may arise during the evidence or submissions. In that situation, a short and controlled use of AI may be reasonable.
The chairperson should not ask only whether AI is being used. The more important questions are:
What is the AI being used for?
Did the issue arise unexpectedly?
Could the representative reasonably have prepared for it beforehand?
How much time is required?
Will the other party receive the same information?
Will the other party have a fair opportunity to respond?
Has confidential or personal information been entered into the AI system?
When should AI use be allowed?
AI use may be allowed where it is limited to a specific and legitimate purpose, such as:
• Checking the citation of a case already identified.
• Locating the full judgment of an authority raised during the hearing.
• Clarifying a legal issue that arose unexpectedly.
• Organising notes during an adjournment.
• Helping to prepare a response to a new argument raised by the other party.
For example, if one party introduces a judgment that was not included in the hearing documents, the chairperson may allow the other party a short adjournment to obtain and read it. This is not an opportunity to rebuild the entire case. It is an opportunity to understand and answer new material.
The party using AI remains responsible for checking the information and presenting it accurately.
When should it not be allowed?
A chairperson may reasonably refuse or limit AI use where:
• The representative is using it because no preparation was done.
• The proposed research will cause unreasonable delay.
• The same request has already been granted.
• The AI is being used to generate evidence or witness answers.
• The representative wants to upload confidential documents.
• New material will be introduced without giving the other party a fair opportunity to respond.
• The AI-generated authority has not been verified.
A disciplinary hearing should not become an open-ended research exercise. Parties should not be able to delay proceedings by searching for new arguments whenever the hearing becomes difficult.
Should case law be researched beforehand?
Yes. Legal research is part of preparing a case and should ordinarily be completed before the hearing. The Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 requires an employer to establish both a fair reason for dismissal and that the dismissal was effected in accordance with a fair procedure.
The current Code of Good Practice: Dismissal, issued under Government Notice 3470 of 2025, is the applicable current code and replaced the former Schedule 8 Code.
The fact that a party can access AI immediately does not remove the responsibility to prepare. AI should not be used as a substitute for reading the charge, reviewing the documents, consulting relevant policies and considering the legal issues before the hearing.
At the same time, preparation cannot anticipate every development. If new evidence or an unexpected legal argument arises, fairness may require the chairperson to allow limited additional preparation.
What should the chairperson do?
The chairperson should manage the request in a practical and even-handed way. If the request is reasonable, the chairperson may:
1. Grant a short adjournment.
2. Limit the research to the specific issue.
3. Require the authority or material to be provided to the other party.
4. Allow the other party time to consider and answer it.
5. Prohibit the uploading of personal or confidential information.
6. Record the ruling and the reason for it.
A suitable direction could be:
“The representative may use an electronic or AI tool during the adjournment to locate and verify the authority raised during the hearing. Any authority relied on must be provided to the other party. No confidential or personal information may be uploaded. The representative remains responsible for the accuracy of the material.”
Can AI be relied on to find the law?
AI should be treated as a research aid, not as a legal authority. It may produce incorrect citations, outdated cases, non-existent judgments or legal principles taken out of context.
This risk is not merely theoretical. A 2026 South African Labour Court matter, Molawa and Others v Matjhabeng Local Municipality and Another, involved legal authorities relied upon by a disciplinary chairperson that were found to be non-existent or unsupported by the propositions for which they were cited. A legal alert discussing the matter warns that AI-assisted legal research must be verified against primary sources and that responsibility for the accuracy of authorities remains with the human decision-maker.
A representative must therefore locate and read the original judgment before relying on it.
The chairperson may also ask the representative to provide the source of the case and the relevant passages. If the authority cannot be verified, it should not be treated as reliable legal material.
What about confidentiality?
A disciplinary hearing may include personal and sensitive information, such as witness statements, medical information, employment records and allegations of misconduct. POPIA requires personal information to be processed in accordance with its requirements, including appropriate safeguards against unauthorised access and disclosure.
Parties should not upload identifiable hearing documents into an unauthorised public AI system. The chairperson may direct that:
• Personal information must not be entered into an AI tool.
• Names must be removed or replaced where possible.
• Witness statements may not be uploaded.
• AI may not be used while a witness is giving evidence.
• Any approved tool must comply with the employer’s information-security requirements.
Can AI make the disciplinary decision?
No. AI should not decide whether the employee is guilty, whether a witness is credible or what sanction should be imposed.
The chairperson must independently assess the evidence and make the finding. AI may help organise notes or produce a draft document, but the final outcome must reflect the chairperson’s own consideration and judgement.
POPIA section 71 is relevant to decisions based solely on automated processing where those decisions have legal consequences or substantially affect a person. The section contains specific exceptions and safeguards, so it should not be read as a blanket prohibition on every use of AI in employment matters. In the context of a disciplinary hearing, however, keeping the final assessment and decision with the human chairperson is an important safeguard.
Employer’s practical position
Employers should adopt a clear rule:
AI may be used during a disciplinary hearing only for limited administrative assistance or to address a genuinely new issue, subject to the chairperson’s permission, reasonable time limits, disclosure to the other party, verification of the information and protection of confidential data. AI may not replace preparation, generate evidence, coach witnesses or make the disciplinary finding or sanction.
In conclusion, can AI be used during a disciplinary hearing? Yes, but not without limits.
The general rule should be that legal research and case preparation are completed before the hearing. Limited use during the hearing may be acceptable where a new issue arises, and the chairperson allows a short, controlled adjournment.
The chairperson must ensure that the use of AI does not create unfair delay, expose personal information or give one party an unfair advantage. AI may assist the hearing, but the parties remain responsible for their cases, and the chairperson remains responsible for the decision.
