This is an appeal against the decision of an arbitrator ordering the appellant to reinstate the respondents or alternatively that the respondents be awarded the appropriate damages in lieu of reinstatement. More
1. The honourable arbitrator misdirected himself at law by applying the labour (amendment) act number 5, 2015 to the matter, yet the Labour Amendment Act was not in operation when the cause of action arose.
2. The honourable arbitrator erred at law in his calculations of the back pay and damages in lieu of reinstatement which led him to arrive at a wrong figure which should be due to the respondents.
3. The honourable arbitrator’s award is so unreasonable and irrational in its defiance of logic so as to constitute a ground of appeal in that: More
The appellant appeals in this case against an arbitral award.
Section 98 (10) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] (“the Act”) provides as follows:
An appeal on a question of law shall lie to the Labour Court from any decision of an arbitrator appointed in terms of this section. More
This matter was set down as an appeal at the appellant council’s instance. On the set down date and in his heads of argument the respondent argued that the matter was improperly before the court for want of its process not being issued out and filed by a legal practitioner as defined by the Legal Practitioners Act. The applicant opposed the point taken and maintained that it was properly before the court on account of the fact that it was represented by its legal officer who is its employee and who fits within the ambit of who should lawfully issue... More
The respondents are employed by the appellant in different capacities. On 1 December 2014 a letter was written by the Director of Corporate Services and Housing advising the respondents of their transfers. These were lateral transfers.
The respondents raised a grievance on the issue and the matter was eventually referred to an arbitrator. Two terms of reference were given to the arbitrator to determine whether the respondents should be appointed substantively to the position they held in an acting capacity and whether the transfers of the respondents had been procedurally effected. More
