The lecturer complained to the court that the university had “failed to ensure a prompt resolution and conclusion of the disciplinary action” and that “the parties involved in [the] disciplinary hearing had resolved the matter between them in an informal manner that any action taken against him is tantamount to ‘double jeopardy’”.
But what got the lecturer hot under the collar was the fact that his disciplinary hearing was dealt with under a new harassment policy.
The university’s harassment officer testified at the hearing that the old policy, although under review, was still being implemented.
“[Rhodes University] admits that the disciplinary hearing was conducted under the auspices of a new procedure. It is conceded in this regard that the new procedure was utilised on the bona fide but mistaken view that it had been approved by the Rhodes University’s governing structures and that it ought to have governed the [lecturer’s] disciplinary hearing,” the judgment reads.
Rhodes University argued that the case concerned a labour relations issue and that the high court was not the appropriate forum to hear the matter.
The university denied that it had breached the lecturer’s contractual rights in a manner that could lead to the nullification of the disciplinary finding.