Four preliminary points were raised for the respondents that the appellants were fugitives from justice they should not be heard, that the grounds of appeal raise procedural issues therefore an application for review should have been made, that the grounds of appeal donot raise questions of law and that the appellant waived their right to appeal. More
- Appellant was in Respondent’s employ as a Trust Plant Manager at the Graniteside Branch.
- By a letter dated the 16th of May, 2014 he was suspended pending investigations into gross acts of misconduct.
- By a letter dated the 21st May 2014, Appellant was advised of a disciplinary hearing on the 28th May, 2014 at 4 pm. The charge was:
“any act, conduct or omission inconsistent with the fulfilment of the express or implied conditions of his contract”
In terms of the National Employment Code of Conduct Statutory Instrument 15 of 2006.
- The said letter stated,
“Please... More
The basis of the charge was that the employees under the national employment council grade had convened a meeting without following the company procedures for holding such a meeting. The appellant was alleged to have approached physically and by telephone some employees and called them to attend the meeting. He threatened some of the employees that if they did not attend they will be labeled as sellouts. He is a managerial employee and he attended and even addressed the meeting on his personal issues. The appellant was initially charged not as a manager to which he successfully objected hence the... More
1. This is an appeal against the decision of the designated authority upholding the decision of the disciplinary committee. The appeal raised three grounds on conviction and two on the penalty. However in court it was agreed that there was only one ground on the conviction which is that there was no adequate evidence to convict on the charges raised. On the penalty it was agreed that if the charge was proved the penalty would be appropriate going by precedent of such cases as Innscor v Letron Chimoto SC 6/2012. The parties thus argued on the sufficiency of the evidence... More
