This matter was set down as an application for quantification of damages arising from an order of 16 October 2015 where the Labour Court ordered that the labour matter pitting the applicant and the respondent employer be heard de novo at arbitration after it was observed that the arbitral award had been a terse award divorced from the shop floor proceedings in the matter. More
This matter was set down as an application for quantification of damages due to the applicant employee following a labor dispute pitting him and the respondent employer. More
Applicant applied to this Court for condonation of a belated quest for review. Respondent opposed the application. He worked for the Respondent as a Bookkeeper. He was charged with misconduct. A hearing was held in his absence. A guilty verdict was returned. The punishment therefor was his dismissal from employment. The termination letter is dated the 8th April 2019. This application for condonation was filed on the 1st October 2019. The intervening period amounts to six (6) months. The Labour Court Rules S.I 150/17 in Rule 20(1) require that a review be brought within twenty-one days from the date proceedings... More
This is an application for rescission of a judgment issued in terms of Rule 19(3) (a) of this Court’s Rules SI 59/2006.
On 6th November 2013 Applicant noted an appeal against an arbitral award dated 22nd October 2013. On 13th November 2013 Respondent filed its Notice of Response. In terms of Rule 19(3) (a) of SI 59/2006 Applicant was supposed to file heads of arguments within fourteen days of receipt of the notice of response. This Applicant did not do. On 17th December 2013 Respondent reminded Applicant of the provisions of Rule 19(3) (a) of SI 59/2006. Applicant did not... More
On the 31st August 2018 the Designated agent issued a determination in which he dismissed the appellant’s claim of unlawful dismissal on the basis that the exercise of retrenchment embarked on by respondent was within the ambit of the law and therefore above board.
Aggrieved by this determination, appellant noted this appeal on the ground that;
the Designated agent erred and misdirected himself on a point of law in failing to hold that the appellant was unlawfully dismissed from employment by the respondent under the guise of a retrenchment which was not done in accordance with the law. More
