This is an appeal against the decision of an Appeals Committee issued on 3 October 2017, which upheld the appellant’s dismissal from the respondent’s employment.
The facts forming the background to the matter are that the appellant was employed by the respondent as Finance and Administration Officer. She was responsible for, among other duties, the custody, recording, and issuing of fuel coupons for the respondent’s vehicle fleet. It is alleged that during the period 9 February 2015 to 12 June 2017, diesel coupons amounting to 660 litres could not be accounted for. It is also alleged that during the period... More
This is an appeal against the decision of the arbitrator where he ruled that appellant had resigned from her employment with respondent hence was not entitled to payment of notice pay or retrenchment package.
The background to the matter is that appellant who was in the respondent’s employ wrote on 4 April 2014 to respondent resigning from her job. She however wrote another letter on 7 April 2014 cancelling her resignation. The respondent accepted her resignation and paid her what was due to her. She was irked by the fact that respondent did not consider the withdrawal of the first... More
Appellant worked for Respondent as a Security Guard. She was charged with misconduct (gross incompetence or inefficiency). A hearing was held. The disciplinary authority found her guilty and recommended her dismissal. Appellant appealed. The Mine Manager dismissed the appeal. Appellant then appealed to this Court in terms of Section 92 D of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01. Respondent opposed the appeal. More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award handed down by Honourable Kare where he ruled that the now appellant was not entitled to automatic renewal of his three year contract and that the now respondent pay to the appellant three months salary in lieu of notice and all calculable benefits among to the appellant. More
At the hearing of this matter, the applicant applied for a postponement.
The reasons for applying for postponement is that they want time to file their heads of arguments which they failed to file in terms of the rules.
The provisions of law are very clear. The respondent ought to have filed their heads in terms of Rule 15. More
