This is an appeal against the arbitrator’s decision where she ruled that appellant employer had underpaid respondent’s employees’ gratuity when it used the industry code calculations as opposed to the model contained in the employees’ handbook forming part of the contract and which contained more favourable provisions.
The background to the matter is that the respondent employees who were in the appellant’s employ had their contracts terminated by efluxion of time. Their contracts were to be read in conjunction with a handbook which provided for among other issues the provision or gratuity or severance upon the expiration the contract. More
The Appellant was employed by the Respondent as a canteen assistant on various fixed term contracts, the last of which terminated on the 30th of November, 2012. The Appellant thereafter referred a complaint of an unfair labour practice based on section 12B (3) (b) of the Labour [Cap 28:01] to the Labour officer. When the Labour officer failed to conciliate the matter was referred to compulsory arbitration. The arbitrator after considering the evidence and submissions made before him issued an award finding that there was no basis on which a legitimate expectation of the renewal of her award could have... More
Appellant appealed against her dismissal from employment by Respondent. With the consent of Respondent, she amended her three grounds of appeal by dropping the first 2 grounds. The remaining ground was amended to read as follows,
“The allegations of misconduct are far fetched, ill-conceived and there is no evidence led to prove the allegations of misconduct.”
Respondent opposed the appeal.
The crisp issue became whether the evidence tendered proved the offence charged. The charges were fraud and an act inconsistent with the conditions of the employment contract. It was specifically alleged that,
“… you wrongfully, unlawfully and fraudulent misrepresented information... More
On the date of hearing of this appeal, the respondent raised two preliminary points. The first preliminary issue was that the appellant’s heads of argument were filed out of the prescribed time frame. The second issue was that the grounds of appeal did not raise questions of law and therefore improperly before the court. More
This is an application for late noting of review of the alleged dismissal from employment by the respondent. It is alleged that they were dismissed from employment in January 2011. There is no decision by the Tribunal to be reviewed. There was no hearing that was conducted at the work place. They were just informed by the headmaster that their services were no longer required by the school. There is no decision to be reviewed in this case. Parties should follow other channels, to redress their grievance. More
