Before the matter was finalized the appellant passed on.An application was made and granted to cite the parties as Estate Late Ishmael Chamisa being represented by the executrix Audrey Chamisa.
This matter comes as an appeal against respondent’s decision to dismiss the appellant. The background to this case is as follows. The appellant was employed by the respondent as a cash collections supervisor. The appellant’s duties included receiving authorised petty cash vouchers after checking them he would make payments. He was the custodian of the petty cash register and was the only person with access to the cash office. On... More
1. This is an application for the reinstatement of an appeal that was “dismissed” by the registrar in terms of subrule (b) of Rule 46 of the Labour Court Rules 2017. At the hearing of the application a preliminary point was raised by the respondent that the applicant could not be represented by the Commercial Workers’ Union because she was a managerial employee. It was further said that she was also not a member of that union anyway as there were no deductions made by the employer towards her membership of the union. The respondent referred to subsection (1) of... More
Appellant was employed as a teacher at Gwariwa Primary School. It is
alleged that she teamed up with her husband in committing acts of
insubordination towards the Headmaster of the school. The two would absent
themselves from work without authorisation. Appellant was subsequently
suspended from duty from 29 March 2011 to 29 June 2011. She thereafter
did not report for duty leading to her dismissal. She is displeased with the
dismissal and has appealed to this Court. More
Appellant appealed to this Court against an arbitration award made in favour of Respondent. The grounds of complained that,
“1. The Arbitrator erred and misdirected himself in law by concluding that the Respondent exercised reasonable skill, due diligence and care in the execution of his duties.
2. the Arbitrator erred and misdirected himself in law in interpreting the Respondent’s letter of promotion of 1st December2000, in particular, by concluding that the Respondent cannot be held to have exhibited gross incompetency or inefficiency in the performance of his duties when his contract of employment did not oblige him to check in... More
