The applicant was an employee of the respondent. Following allegations of misconduct, applicant was charged in terms of the respondent’s Code of Conduct.
Applicant was found liable and the employment contract was terminated. The applicant appealed to the NEC Appeals Board “the Board”. The Board after considering the matter remitted the case to the respondent to address the procedural irregularities identified by the Board. The Board did not address the merits of the case. More
The background of this matter is that the applicant is a former employee of the first respondent .The two parted ways. When they so parted ways there were some sums of money due to the applicant from the first respondent. This is not disputed. The first respondent did not fulfil its obligations to pay the applicant. This led the applicant to approach a labour officer ,2nd respondent, in terms of s93(5a)and (5b) of the Labour Act,[Chapter 28:01] (the Act).The 1st respondent did not deny its liability, as a result a ‘ Certificate of Settlement’ was signed before the second respondent.... More
This is an appeal against the determination of the respondent’s Chief Executive Officer (CEO) dated 22 November 2019, in terms of which the appellant was dismissed from employment.
The brief facts of the matter are that the appellant was employed by the respondent as a driver. He was charged with misconduct in terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement: National Employment Council for the Transport Operating Industry, Statutory Instrument 26 of 2017. More
Respondent who had been employed by Appellant was dismissed from employment and successfully challenged his dismissal before an arbitrator. The arbitrator ordered his reinstatement without loss of salary and benefits with effect from the date of dismissal. Respondent alleges that he reported for duty but was denied entrance into Appellant’s premises and was told not to report for duty. He then approached the arbitrator for quantification of damages. More
