This is an application for condonation for the late filing of an application for review and extension of time within which to apply for review of the proceedings held before the 1st respondent.
Background
The 2nd respondent was employed by the 3rd respondent as its managing director. He was charged with gross incompetence and inefficiency in terms of the governing regulations. He was found guilty and dismissed. He challenged the proceedings in an application for review which was successful and the 2nd respondent was reinstated without loss of salary or benefits. The 3rd respondent (the employer) was aggrieved and unsuccessfully... More
This is an application for the dismissal of the respondent’s appeal for want of prosecution. The application has been made in terms of Rule 19 (3) (a) of the Labour Court Rules, S.I. 59/2006 (The Rules), on the basis that the respondent has not filed heads of argument. More
This is an appeal against the Arbitrator’s ruling which awarded the Respondent a salary increase in essence varying the retrenchment package agreed to by the parties.
The background to this case is as follows. The Respondent was employed by the Appellant until the 31st of March 2010 when he was retrenched. The Appellant and the Respondent agreed on the retrenchment package which was duly signed on the 15th of February 2010. While the parties were negotiating the retrenchment package, the Appellant was reviewing its employee’s salaries. Respondent was aware of this. The salary review resulted in a 38% salary increment... More
This is an appeal against a determination of the National Hearing Committee for the National Employment Council for the Communications and Allied Services (hereinafter referred to as the Appeals Committee). More
This matter comes as both an appeal and a review. It is a review of the Respondent’s National Employment Council (Appeals Committee’s) decision to dismiss the appeal by the Appellant. The appeal is against the hearing committee’s decision that found Appellant guilty and imposed a dismissal penalty.
The Appellant was employed as a security supervisor by the Respondent. His job description was not produced at any stage during all the proceedings for a clear understanding of what was expected of him. He was charged for gross incompetence. He appeared before Respondent’s disciplinary committeewhich found him guilty and dismissed him. Appellant... More
