This is an appeal against the decision of the respondent’s Appeals Committee, which upheld the dismissal of the appellant from employment. The appellant was dismissed from employment following his conviction on misconduct allegations by the respondent’s Disciplinary Committee.
The appellant was employed by the respondent as a Stores Issuer. In March 2014, he was charged with misconduct, the charge being theft, in terms PART B (4) (d) of the Collective Bargaining Agreement: Mining Industry (Code of Conduct) Statutory Instrument 165 of 1992. It was alleged that he stole 15 litres of petrol by making a deliberateover allocation to the Mine’s... More
On 5 June 2015 Arbitrator T Chamisa issued an arbitration award. He ordered respondent to pay appellant a total sum of +US$11 000.00 in respect of back-pay, cash in lieu of leave and damages for loss of employment. Appellant then appealed to this court against the award. Respondent opposed the appeal.
The major bone of contention was the rate (monthly salary) used by the arbitrator to calculate the damages. Appellant stated that his back-pay should be reckoned in two phases. The 1st covers the period January 2013 to May 2014. He stated that in addition to his regular wage he... More
After hearing appellant’s legal practitioner on the issue of Respondent’s failure to attend court for this appeal hearing, I directed that the hearing proceeds in terms of Rule 37 (b) of this court’s Rules, Statutory Instrument 150 of 2017. More
This is an appeal against a determination of the National Employment Council for Welfare and Educational Institutions Appeals Committee (the Appeals Committee). The determination upheld the earlier decisions by the Disciplinary Committee and the Chief Executive Officer to dismiss Appellant. More
This is an appeal from a decision of a labour officer.
At the hearing of the matter before me, a point in imine was taken by the respondent who argued that the matter was never improperly before the arbitrator.
Reliance for this proposition was placed on the provisions of 101 (5) of the Act which provides as follows;
“notwithstanding this part, but subject to subsection (6), no labour officer shall intervene in any dispute or matter which is or is liable to be the subject of proceedings under an employment code, nor shall he intervene in any such proceedings.” More
