The Respondent is a Risk and Compliance Manager under the employ of the Appellant. On 11 March 2021 the Respondent spilled tea on his office laptop leading to the machine malfunctioning and it was sent for repairs at the cost of the Appellant. Following upon the report being made the Appellant conducted an investigation and findings were made that Respondent had contravened Clause 3.7 of the ICT Policy which has provisions that prohibit consumption of food and drinks near computers and all ICT hardware. This policy was said to be well known to the Respondent who had committed himself to... More
Appellant was in the employ of the Respondent as Finance and Administration Director. Allegations of misconduct were levelled against in terms of the National Code of Conduct, that is, contravening section 4 (a), it being alleged that he was guilty of gross incompetence or inefficiency in the performance of his duties. The brief allegations were that Appellant had presented a financial report containing incorrect information which was calculated to mislead Respondent’s Board. In the hearing several witnesses were called to testify against the Appellant. It is important to make the observation that none of the witnesses gave any evidence to... More
Appellant appealed to this Court against his dismissal from employment by Respondent. The appeal was made in terms of section 92D of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01.
Respondent opposed the appeal. The grounds of appeal read thus,
1. The Chairperson of the Disciplinary Committee grossly erred and misdirected himself in making a finding that the Appellant was grossly inefficient in the performance of his duties in circumstances where the allegations were not supported by any of the evidence led in oral testimony.
2. The Chairperson of the Disciplinary Committee grossly erred and misdirected himself in shifting the burden of proof... More
By an award dated the 28th February, 2014, the Arbitrator found that Respondent had been unfairly dismissed and ordered that she be reinstated to her position without loss of salary and benefits. In the event of reinstatement not being possible, Respondent was to be paid damages. More
