This is a consolidation of appeals filed by the appellants and respondent in Case No LC/H/766/14 and LC/H/819/14 respectively. The appeals emanate from the decision of the arbitrator. The arbitrator dismissed the appellants’ claims in respect of wage differentials allegedly perpetrated by the respondent and a further claim for a failure to establish a Job Grading Committee was equally dismissed. The arbitrator upheld the claim that the respondent should reinstate the Service Awards which was appealed against by the respondent. More
Appellant alleges that the Arbitrator awarded damages without hearing evidence on the reasonable time it would have taken Respondent with reasonable diligence, to obtain alternative employment. Also that, the Arbitrator awarded damages when he had found that Respondent had not mitigated her loss. Further, that the Arbitrator had awarded 12 months damages which is a total of three distinct components. More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award.
The appellant was employed by the respondent as a forecourt cashier from December 2012. He was earning a salary of $250.00 per month. The respondent alleges that the service station at which the appellant was employed closed in December 2013. The appellant then lodged a complaint with the NEC for the Motor Industry on 19 February 2014 alleging non-payment of salaries, overtime and underpayments. Failing settlement at conciliation level, the matter was referred to arbitration. More
The complaints set out above relate to the labour officer’s (L.O.) ruling and his conduct of the proceedings before him. It is evidently necessary to hear the labour officer’s comments regarding his impugned conduct. For him to comment he has to be cited as a party. It is a longstanding practice, if not a legal requirement, to cite an official whose conduct is condemned. This allows him to comment on the allegations and thus give the adjudicator a fuller picture of the case before him. For that reason I consider that the point in limine was well taken. More
At the hearing of this matter, preliminary issues were raised by both parties it is this court’s intention to deal with the issue first of whether or not the appeal raises any questions of law.
The respondent stated that no points of law were raised in the grounds of appeal. More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award in terms of which it was ordered that the dispute between the appellant and the respondent be heard de novo. More
Appellant worked for Respondent as a Security Officer. On 30th June 2015 he was dismissed from employment for misconduct. He appealed against the dismissal to Respondent’s Chief Executive Officer (CEO). By letter dated 9th July 2015 the CEO dismissed the appeal. Appellant then appealed to this Court. Respondent opposed the appeal. More
