The Applicants were charged with Theft, Dishonesty and Fraud in terms of the Company’s Code of Conduct, for missing stock of 4 000 x 92 bale ties. Before the Disciplinary hearing was conducted, the Applicants were arrested by the police for the same offence and a criminal charge was raised against them. They were granted bail and released on bail on 6 August 2010. While they were on bail, they were called to a Disciplinary hearing on 14 December, 2010. More
Facts of the case are that the Appellants joined the employ of Addis Neon and Teunion Signs in 1966. These companies were subsequently bought by the now Respondent Claude Neon. Upon the purchase Appellant and his colleague were among the employees who were engaged by Claude Neon and made to sign new contracts with Respondent. When they eventually reached retirement age they sought to have Claude pay them retirement benefits for the period they used to be in the employ of Addis and Teunion.
Respondent spurned that request arguing that such claims had to be met by to the company... More
The brief background to the matter is that the Appellant was employed by Respondent, and was at the material time working in the Delicatessen Department. In November 2009, she was convicted of misconduct in terms of the National Employment Council for the Commercial Sectors Employment Code of Conduct (NEC Code). The Disciplinary Committee found her guilty of the Group IV Offence of “DISHONESTY AND RELATED OFFENCES”- which is the unlawful taking of property with the intention of permanently depriving the company of such property. The Appellant was found by the Duty Manager eating potatoes in a kitchen, outside the normal... More
Respondent was employed by the Appellant as a Bar Assistant/Assistant Cashier. It is alleged that Appellant verbally dismissed her resulting in the matter being referred to conciliation. Conciliation failed and the matter was referred to arbitration. The Arbitrator found in favour of the Respondent. The Appellant is not satisfied and has appealed to this Court. More
This is a determination of a point in limine which was initially dismissed by this court.It is being determined for the second time following an order of the Supreme Court.It is therefore necessary to go through the various stages leading to the present position.The present determination is done on the basis of the papers as agreed to by the parties. More
This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against an order by this court declining condonation for late noting of an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
On the 19th May, 2010 after hearing an appeal by Applicant this court reserved judgment which judgment was then delivered on the 3rd December, 2010. More
The appellant who was employed by the respondent was dismissed after allegations of misconduct were raised against him. The respondent (employer) found him guilty and dismissed him.
The employee appealed against both the employer’s decision to find him guilty and to dismiss him. The employee also noted an application for review and the parties agreed that both the merits of the Review and the appeal be considered in these proceedings: More
