- 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
This is an appeal against the decision that led to appellant’s dismissal from employment following allegations that he had given false information relating to duplicated bar code 106 which could have resulted in loss of the company’s roll of electric cable. More
This is an application for condonation of late filing of heads of argument.
The brief history of this matter is that respondent filed its appeal on the 16September 2011. Applicant then filed his notice of response on the
30 September 2011. The respondent then filed its heads of argument on the
7 June 2013. The matter failed to take off on the 11 December 2012 because respondent had not filed heads of argument. On the 11 June 2013 the matter was then postponed sine die to enable applicant’s legal practitioner to file heads of argument. On the 28 June 2013... More
