The Applicant was employed as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) by the first Respondent. Applicant had been employed by the 1st Respondent in February 1985 initially as an Internal Auditor. He later became first Respondent’s Group Chief Accountant, the Group Financial Controller and the General Manager Finance and Investments. In 2004, he was appointed to the position of Chief Executive Officer. He reported directly to the Board of Directors. More
The respondent was employed by the appellant as a machine operator from 19 January 2009 to 28 February 2013, when he was suspended from employment. More
This is an appeal against the decision of an appeals officer. It is in terms of the workplace code of conduct. The appellant was charged of “Failure to fulfill the expressed or implied conditions of the contract of employment or any breach of the employment contract” (section 15.9.1 of the Old Mutual Employment Code of Conduct) Clause 8 of specific contract of employment read:
“The employee will perform his/her duties in the best interests of Old Mutual and will refrain from any action which may in any manner harm the good name and reputation of Old Mutual or which may... More
This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. This Court allowed an appeal by the Respondent against a decision by an arbitrator in favour of the Applicants.
Applicants were employed by BP Shell as supply and logistics Managers respectively. Around 20 October 2010 BP Shell sold its services as a going concern to Respondent. A transfer of undertaking was done in terms of Section 16 of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01]. On 21 November 2011 Respondent offered Applicants a voluntary retrenchment package which was declined. On 15 December 2011 Respondent served Applicants with a compulsory notice... More
This is an application for a review of the proceedings held before the Respondent. Applicants are seeking an order quashing the proceedings and that fresh proceedings be held before an independent Labour Officer of Arbitrator. At the onset of the proceedings the Respondent’s Counsel raised a point in limine that there was no proper application before me. I dismissed that the application and indicated reasons would follow alongside the main judgment. More
