Applicant (the employee) applied for a rescission of the judgment handed down in default of his appearance at the Labour Court on 13 June 2012 in favor of the Respondent (the employer). This forms the basis of this judgment.
The background of the case is that the employee was dismissed by the employer following disciplinary proceedings which were conducted in his absence at the workplace. His matter ended up at the Labour Officers and finally at arbitration where the arbitrator made an order wherein among other things the employer was ordered to reinstate the employee to his original position. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the appeals officer which decision upheld the decision of the hearing officer. The appellant was charged and convicted in terms of section 15.9.1 of the Old Mutual Code of Conduct. It reads-
“Failure to fulfill the expressed or implied conditions of the contract of employment or any breach of the employment contract”.
The charge further specified Clause 8(1) of the employment contract which reads-
“The employee will perform his/her duties in the best interests of Old Mutual and will refrain from any action which may in any way harm the good name... More
Application for condonation for late noting of review application was filed at the instance of the applicant employee. The respondent employer opposed the condonation and raised a point in limine. It is the point in limine which is the subject of this judgment.
The employer takes the point that the condonation application is improperly before the court as it is based on a defective notice of review. Its argument is that LC5 the form on which a review application is to be made makes it clear that the application shall be accompanied by a founding affidavit which the respondent would... More
1. This is an appeal against the decision of the employer finding the Appellant guilty as charged and imposing a penalty of dismissal. The appeal is against both the conviction and the penalty. The appeal was opposed. More
This is an application for review of the events that eventually led to the applicants’ retirement/dismissal from employment. It is alleged that the Town Clerk acted ultra vires his mandate in that he made the decision meromotu in the absence of a Council Resolution to retire the first and 2nd Applicants. It has also been submitted to the court that the 3rd and 4th Applicants’ offices have been abolished by the Respondent and thus abolition amounts to a defacto retrenchment exercise. The Applicants have told the court that this is a unilateral variation of the employment contract. More
