The appellant was employed by the respondent from 1985 until September 2014 when he was dismissed from employment. He has approached this Court on appeal against the dismissal. More
The material background facts to the matter are as follows; the applicant is a former employee of the respondent. He was employed as a general hand in the Tobacco Section. On the 17th *March 2022 the respondent levelled a charge of misconduct against the Applicant. The Applicant was subsequently suspended from employment ‘until further notice’ on the 24th of March, 2022. He was later charged with committing ‘any conduct inconsistent with the fulfilment of the express or implied terms of his employment contract’. On the 7th of April 2022 he appeared before a Disciplinary Authority to answer to the charge.... More
The appellant was employed as a shift Manager from November 2009. During the course of his duties he was found with a variance of forty eight cans of drinks after a random spot check was conducted. He was charged in terms of Section 4 (a) of Statutory Instrument 15 of 2006 and subsequently dismissed in October 2010.
After the dismissal the case took a long and winding journey. Accordingto the Respondent the appellant noted an internal appeal on 18 October 2010 and also referred the matter to a Labour Officer on the same day. When conciliation failed the matter was... More
This is an appeal against a determination of the respondent’s chief executive officer.
The appellant was employed by the respondent as a risk control assistant from 18 February 2007 to 24 November 2015when he was suspended from duty pending disciplinary proceedings. More
By consent, the disciplinary proceedings held by the respondent on 4 July 2014 be and are hereby set aside.
• respondent is to reinstate the applicant with effect from dated of unlawful dismissal without loss of salary and benefits, and may, if it so wishes reinstitute fresh disciplinary proceedings in a procedurally correct manner.
• in the event that reinstatement is not an option, the applicant should be paid damages in lieu of reinstatement, the quantum of which should be agreed by the parties or assessed by the court.
The respondent is of the view that reinstatement is no longer... More
