This is an appeal against an arbitral award.
The appellant was employed by the respondent as a forecourt cashier from December 2012. He was earning a salary of $250.00 per month. The respondent alleges that the service station at which the appellant was employed closed in December 2013. The appellant then lodged a complaint with the NEC for the Motor Industry on 19 February 2014 alleging non-payment of salaries, overtime and underpayments. Failing settlement at conciliation level, the matter was referred to arbitration. More
This is a ruling on the preliminary issues raised by the parties. Applicant raised the point that the deponent to the Opposing Affidavit had not shown that he was duly authorised. In response Respondent’s legal practitioner stated that the Deponent was not initiating the application but merely acting as a witness. It was also averred that Applicant had not raised this issue in previous proceedings beginning with the Disciplinary proceedings which were initiated by the Deponent. More
Applicant was employed by the Respondent as an Engineering Manager. Respondent, initially dismissed Applicant from employment and he approached the Labour Officer. Parties agreed that the purported dismissal was un-procedural and the Labour Officer ordered Applicant’s immediate reinstatement, that is, with effect from 12 May 2023. Respondent proceeded to charge the Applicant with misconduct and a Disciplinary Hearing was set for 30 May 2023. Applicant attended the hearing with his legal practitioners. Applicant’s legal practitioners raised certain preliminary points before the Disciplinary Committee. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the respondent’s appeals committee to dismiss the appellants. The first appellant was employed by the respondent as a buyer whilst the second appellant was employed as a stores controller. On 18 March 2016 the appellants faced allegations of breaching the respondent’s code of conduct. More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award, the grounds of appeal being that:-
- the Arbitrator erred in law
- in holding the appellant committed an unfair labour practice by terminating respondents’ contracts of employment.
- Ordering appellant to reimburse respondents’ money deducted for training when there was no basis at law for such a finding. More
