On 13 November 2014 I dismissed with costs an appeal filed by Respondents after an application was made in terms of Rule 19 (3) (a) of the Labour Court Rules SI 59/2006. The said rule obliges an appellant to file heads of argument within fourteen days of receiving a notice of response to the appeal. On 20 November 2014 Respondent wrote to the Registrar of this Court requesting for a reasoned judgment. The reasons for the dismissal of the appeal are clear. More
This matter was reffered to me in Chambers in terms of Rule19 (3) (a) of this Court’s rules. The Respondent applied for the dismissal of the appeal filed by the Appellant. I noted that the appeal was dismissed on 13 April 2012 by this Court in terms of Rule19 (3) (a). I caused the Registrar to invite parties so that I clarify on why I should again dismiss an already dismissed appeal. More
This is an appeal against the determination by the NEC for the Engineering and Iron and Steel Industry which ordered that the Respondent be reinstated and that a warning letter be withdrawn and that the deductions made be reimbursed. More
The parties appeared before me on 21 July 2016 and requested to compile the record and make supplementary submissions. The Court accordingly issued timelines within which the filing of documents was to be concluded. After both parties had filed the documents, they indicated that the Court could proceed to make a determination on the basis of the documents filed of record. The Court will thus proceed on that basis. More
The employer contends that it failed to file its heads of argument because of lockdown restrictions and because of administration glitchesat their offices. It contends further that it has a good case on the merits. This is so given the fact that it intends to have the Supreme Court determine the issue of currency conversion which it considers a question of law and only the domain of the Supreme Court for its resolution. More
