The appellant is employed by the respondent as a primary school senior teacher. She was charged for admitting two grade two pupils into her grade one class without the authority of the school head. This was a violation of paragraph 3 and 24 of the First schedule of S.I. 1/2000 as amended “Paragraph 3 of the First Schedule (Section 2) of Statutory Instrument 1 of 2000 (S.1. 1/2000) provides:
3. “Failure to perform any work or duty properly assigned, or failure to obey lawful instructions including circulars, instructions or orders issued by the Commission, the Treasury or the Accounting Officer... More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award. The grounds of appeal can be summarized as follows:-
1. The Arbitrator misdirected himself on the law by shifting the burden of proof from Respondent to Appellant.
2. The Arbitrator erred on a question of law by basing his decision on the parties written submissions without holding an oral hearing.
3. The Arbitrator erred in finding that Respondent be paid a gratuity.
4. The Arbitrator misinterpreted Section 125 of the Labour Act. It does not oblige employers to prove cases for employees. More
This matter arose from the change of ownership from BP and Shell Private Limited to the Appellant as a going concern with a clause inserted in the agreement guaranteeing the conditions of service of the employees. It is alleged the said clause was violated by the Appellant. After initial attempts to resolve the matter failed, it was referred to compulsory arbitration. More
