“1. The Honourable Arbitrator seriously misdirected himself on the facts by finding that the Appellants failed to discharge the onus on them to prove on a balance of probabilities, the existence of a contractual obligation of the Respondent to assist and/or provide Claimants financial assistant to purchase residential stands for them, and sell them its own trucks at bank value and provide them with medical insurance. Such a finding was not supported by any evidence and was contrary to the evidence presented before the Honourable Arbitrator.
2. The Honourable Arbitrator erred by finding that the Appellants were not owed overtime... More
In the exercise of its functions, the Labour Court may conduct a hearing into the matter or determine it on the record. See Section 89 (2)(a)(i) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01]. This appeal has proceeded in terms of the above section. More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award made in favour of the respondent.
The facts of the case are not in dispute. The appellant was employed by the respondent as a Chief Internal Auditor. According to the appellant on 6 February 2012 he was suspended for contravening the respondent’s Code of Conduct. It was alleged that the appellant wilfully lost council property and secondly for engaging in behaviour likely to harm the financial position of the council. More
Applicant applied to this Court for rescission of judgement in terms of section 92C of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01 as read with Rule of the Labour Court Rules, 2017. Respondent opposed the application. More
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
