This is an appeal against an arbitral award made in favour of the respondents.
The three respondents were employed by the appellant in different capacities on fixed term contracts of one month at a time. The contracts were continuously renewed to the extent that the first respondent worked for appellant for a period of 7 years 6 months, the second respondent worked for 1 year 3 months and the third respondent worked for 1 year 7 months. On
30 September 2010 the three respondents were advised by the appellant orally after work not to report for duty the following day... More
The brief history of this matter is that the respondents were employed by the appellant. It is alleged that the respondents made a report at Mega Park and when an audit report was carried out the report was found to be false. They were suspended from duty on 4 November 2010 on allegations of making a false report. A disciplinary hearing was conducted and the respondents were dismissed from work. More
Following the dismissal of its postponement application the appellant was granted leave by the court to address it on the bar operating against it vis filing of heads of argument. After oral submissions on that aspect the court advised the parties that they will hear of the court decision from the clerk of court. More
The appellant employed the respondent as a general hand for 43 years until he retired in 2013.
While he was employed, both the employer and the employee contributed towards a pension fund in behalf of the respondent with Old Mutual.
Following his retirement, he was duly paid his pension benefits by Old Mutual in terms of the fund that he had contributed to. More
The appellant employed the respondent as an accounting assistant in 2008.
Appellant outlined the facts of the matter as follows;
Due to continuous ill health the respondent went on sick leave in May, 2013 up to October 2013 for a period of 180 days.
In November 2013 after the 180 sick leave period, the respondent reported for work but it was apparently very clear to all concerned that the respondent was still very ill and unfit for duty. It was agreed that the respondent should go on unpaid leave while recovering. More
