This is an appeal against the decision of the National Employment Council Appeals Committee “NEC Appeals Committee”.
The facts of the case are common cause. The respondent was employed as a cementer by the appellant.
On 8 October 2014 one Max an employee of appellant during his course of work intended to serve the workers’ committee representatives with certain documents. It was alleged that Max engaged the chairman of the worker’s committee, who invited the rest of the workers’ committee members and other employees. More
On 12 December 2014 the appellant dismissed the respondent from employment following disciplinary proceedings.
An Internal appeal was unsuccessful. He appealed to the National Employment Council Appeals Committee, ‘the Committee’. The Committee found that the respondent committed a less serious offence, and ordered that the penalty of dismissal be set aside and substituted by a final written warning. The appellant was therefore to reinstate the respondent and in the alternative pay damages. More
The Appellant was charged with a violation of Section 38 of the Colcom Code of Conduct – Theft. He was convicted on the charge and a sentence of dismissal from his employment was imposed. He appealed unsuccessfully to the two internal appeal structures. He has now brought the present appeal to the Labour Court.
The appeal was noted initially on the basis of six grounds. At the hearing of the matter the Appellant’s Representative conceded that the first three grounds being essentially grounds for review were incompetent grounds. More
This is an appeal against the Respondent’s decision. The appellant was employed by the respondent as a technician. In the course of his duty he went to work on a fault at Peterhouse, whereas the papers said that he worked at Dombi Farm. It was found out that the Appellant’s papers were not in order. Investigations were instituted. He was asked to write a report and he did. Later he was asked again to write a more detailed report. He refused and referred the investigator to the earlier report. Investigations established that no work was carried out at Dombi Farm. More
The applicant in this matter applied for review of the decision of the Respondent’s Disciplinary Committee which was made on the 23rd of March 2009.
When parties appeared before this Court the respondent raised points in limine i.e.
(i) That the respondent filed its application well out of time i.e. about (3) three months after the hearing.
(ii) He did not even file an application for condonation of the late application.
(iii) Applicant did not exhaust the internal remedies provided in the Code of Conduct. More
