On 27 June 2024 applicant applied to this Court for rescission of judgement and condonation of late filing of Notice of Response. The application was made in terms of Rule 40 of the Labour Court Rules, 2017 More
Applicant applied to this Court for rescission of judgment in terms of Rule 40 of the Labour Court Rules, 2017. Respondent opposed the application.
In its papers respondent raised 3 points in limine. However, at the onset of oral argument it abandoned the first and last points.
The remaining point in limine was to the effect that the application is fatally defective for failure to comply with the Court’s Rules. More
The law that governs appeals to this Court against arbitral awards is very clear.
Section 98(10) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] provides,
“An appeal on a question of law shall lie to the Labour Court from any decision of an arbitrator appointed in terms of this section.”
This is an appeal against an arbitral award filed in this Court by the Appellants. Does the appeal in its grounds comply with the above provision? Respondent’s answer to this question is that, it does not, hence it has raised a point in limine to that effect. More
The brief factual background is that the applicant was employed by the respondent as Financial Accountant. He was dismissed for misconduct after disciplinary proceedings held in terms of the Labour (National Employment Code of Conduct) Regulations Statutory Instrument 15 of 2006. (National Code).
The matter went for arbitration, following procedures provided for in the National Code. The arbitrator, in his award dated 10 December 2013, upheld the verdict of guilty, but set aside the penalty of dismissal. The arbitrator ordered the reinstatement of the applicant, without pay and benefits for the period he was on suspension. It appears the penalty... More
The applicant was employed by the respondent as a general manager. A dispute arose over the manner in which his personal issue vehicle had been purchased. As a result of which the applicant was suspended and later invited to a disciplinary hearing. He was found guilty after the proceedings had been conducted in his absence and he was dismissed. More
