This is an appeal against the determination of an arbitrator.
Arbitrator was to determine:
(i) Whether or not the employee was brought before a medical board.
(ii) Whether or not the case is now prescribed.
The arbitrator made factual findings on the basis of evidence before him that the Appellant was placed before a Board (Medical) and was advised to report for duty but that he did not do so. Secondly, the Learned Arbitrator made a finding that the dispute [which arose some four (4) years before the matter was brought for resolution] had prescribed. More
In argument before this court respondent focused on appellant’s failure to exhaust domestic remedies. Appellant did not give a written response to the argument. In his oral submissions he simply stated that he was advised to appeal to this court. As he appeared in person, he was apparently unaware of the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies.
Indeed such remedies are provided for by the National Employment Code enacted as S.I. 15/06. Section 8 of the Code provides for an appeal to an Appeals Officer against the decision of a Disciplinary Committee (DC). Appellant in casu was aggrieved by the decision... More
On the 8th of January, 2014, through his erstwhile legal practitioner, Appellant filed an appeal with this Court. The grounds of appeal can be gleaned from pages 5 – 7 of the record. These are that:-
1. Respondent misdirected itself of a point of law and on the facts in finding that Appellant was guilty of misconduct and that he was lawfully dismissed as
1.1. Appellant was not given sufficient particulars of the charges.
1.2. The Disciplinary Committee violated the Interfresh Limited Code of Conduct as well as the rules of natural justice in that he was not afforded an... More
The appellant was employed by the Judicial Service Commission (the respondent) as a court interpreter. He was found guilty of an act of misconduct and he was dismissed. This is his appeal against his conviction and penalty. More
In August, 2011, the Appellant was charged with violating sub sections 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 10 of Section A and sub Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Section B of the (IT) User Agreement which provided that company technologies were provided and reserved for the company’s business only in that he sent insulting personal messages to his subordinate; one Neverrest Simango.
The second charge was for contravening the Tobacco Industry Code of Conduct in that he displayed indiscipline, violence and other related offences by using insulting or abusive language and the third charge was for dishonest, theft, fraud... More
