In the interests of justice the court invoked rule 26 and condoned the flouting of the time lines and consequently ordered that the matter be set down and be argued on the merits. Dissatisfied by this order the applicant employer has now applied to this court to grant it leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The basis for the application is that the Labour Court erred to invoke rule 26 mero motu and to order that the matter now be heard on the merits. Its main argument is that there was no way both parties could have been said... More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award. In terms of Section 98(10) of the Labour Act, [Chapter 28:01] appeals such as this one must be premised on a point of law. More
This is an application asking this court
“to issue an order to force the 1st Respondent to issue out an arbitral award that meets the requirements of Labour Act [Cap 28:01] section 98 subsection 14”
The Applicant avers that the arbitral award granted by Honourable J.T. Mawire on September 2010 does not comply with section 98 (13) and (14) of the Labour Act, in that it does not sound in money. He now wants this court to issue an order compelling the Arbitrator to issue an order that sounds in money. More
The appellant raised two preliminary issues before the matter proceeded into the merits. Firstly that the respondent filed its notice of response out of time and therefore was barred in terms of Rule 19 3(b) of the Labour Court Rules (“the rules”). Secondly that the said notice of response was not properly before the court as it was not made on the proper form LC2 prescribed by the rules. The appellant relied on Rule 19 which deals with failure to file heads of argument instead of Rule 22 that deals with failure to file a notice of response within the... More
The appellant’s main ground of appeal is that the respondent was not entitled to salary arrears in the sum of $2 966-40. This was salaries for nine months. The background to this amount is that the respondent was dismissed on 12 January 2012. After her dismissal the matter was referred for conciliation and subsequently the parties appeared before an arbitrator. The arbitrator having made a finding that the respondent was properly dismissed made an order in the following terms:
(i) That the dismissal of the employee be and is hereby confirmed.
(ii) That the employee be paid salary arrears from... More
This is an application for condonation of late noting of an appeal. The applicant was found guilty of breaching section 18.3 (12) of the respondent’s Code of Conduct. He was alleged to have fraudulently requested for $5-00 parking fees instead of $2-00 established by management. He was dismissed and subsequently followed the wrong route on appeal. The applicant was a self-actor at the time. The National Employment Council for the Motor Industry subsequently advised the applicant that the appeal lies with the Labour Court. More
