The applicants were employed by the respondent in different capacities. The applicants raised a grievance claiming they were being underpaid and nonpayment of shift allowances. The matter was subsequently referred to an arbitrator Honourable Chavura. The arbitral award, whose interpretation is the basis of this application was made in the following terms
“… I order that they (applicants) be paid the balance of their wages and the outstanding shift allowances, plus interest of 30% per annum. The union should assist the employer in calculating the outstanding wages and allowances …” More
[1]This is an application for review. The applicant raises the following three grounds :
‘1.The absence of jurisdiction on the part of the arbitrator or adjudicating authority concerned.
2.Gross irregularities in the disciplinary proceedings that led to applicant’s dismissal.
3.Interest in the cause , bias , malice or corruption on the part of the arbitrator or adjudicating authority concerned.’
Review proceedings are provided for in the Labour Act Chapter 28:01 ( the Act) as follows: More
Appellant appealed to this Court against his dismissal from employment by Respondent. The grounds of appeal read,
“1. No evidence was led to prove the allegations for example there were no witness (sic) to substantiate the allegations.
2. The Appellant was convicted on mere allegations.
3. The Appellant gave evidence which was not contradicted and therefore should have been acquitted. The evidence given by the Appellant shows that he had not committed any form of misconduct and therefore the finding of guilt was not justified.
4. There was no proper trial.” More
This is an appeal against the decision of the respondent employer finding the appellant employee guilty of conduct inconsistent with his employment and penalizing him with dismissal. The appellant raises 9 grounds of appeal but they all culminate into a single appeal ground that the appellant is not happy with the penalty which was meted out on him. He argues that he should have received a lower penalty taking into account that the stolen gun was not stolen in his custody but in the custody of another officer one who was well trained to use the gum and who he... More
This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court at the instance of the applicant employee. This application is made pursuant to this court’s judgment of 10 July 2015 where it confirmed the arbitrator’s decision where he had ruled that the applicant employee could not have his appeal dealt with out of time as the model code does not provide condonation provisions to be used in cases where a party seeks relief out of time.
The basis for the instant leave to appeal application is that this court erred on a point of law by agreeing with... More
