Appellant’s grounds of appeal complained that,
“1. The National Employment Council Negotiating Committee erred in failing to appreciate that the Respondent’s disciplinary process was flawed as it negated and breached the principles of natural justice by inter alia; …
2. Even assuming but not admitting that the disciplinary process was properly conducted the NEC’s Negotiating Committee (“NEC”) erred and seriously misdirected itself when it failed to address and concede the fact that Appellant had been reinstated on 17 May 2012 and accordingly was entitled to his back pay.
3. Appellant was not allowed to address in mitigation before the decision... More
The background of the matter is that the appellant is employed by the respondent as a relationship manager.
On 15 April 2008, the applicant was appointed as a manager and since his appointment in 2008, he had use of a Nissan/J85/D/CAB. He was allowed to purchase the vehicle in 2010 and in 2011 he was given a second motor vehicle, a Nissan NP300 which he continues to use to this date.
In November 2015, some 4 years later, the respondent wrote to him, the contents of which letter aggrieved the appellant who raised a grievance with the respondent. The complaint... More
This is an appeal against the determination of Respondent Works Council sitting as an Appeals Committee which determination was handed down on the 20th November, 2019. The determination effectively upheld an earlier determination by the Respondent Disciplinary Committee finding Appellant guilty and imposing thereafter a dismissal penalty. The appeal is opposed. More
On 1 June 2012 this Court gave an order remitting the issue of penalty to the Respondent for reconsideration in the following terms.
“The matter is referred back to the Disciplinary Hearing Committee to pass an appropriate penalty in the circumstances”. More
This is an application for review.
The applicant was employed by the respondent following allegations of misconduct, a disciplinary hearing was conducted in terms of the respondent’s code of conduct. The applicant was convicted and dismissed from employment. Aggrieved, applicant filed this application for review.
The respondent raised some points in limine. The first of which was that the applicant’s application for review was filed out of time. This objection was however later withdrawn by the Respondent. More
