This is an appeal against an arbitral award.
The respondent was employed as a cook by appellant from January 2005 to 30 January 2015, when he retired More
“Appellant in this matter was employed as a standby driver for a period of four years. On the 3rd of January 2015, appellant was called to ferry employees on standby from the mine to slymes dam. On that particular day it was raining heavily and appellant went to the slymes dam on two occasions without any problem. On the third occasion the car stopped in the midst of stagnant water caused by heavy rains. Appellant was charged by respondent on allegations of gross incompetence and he was dismissed at the initial hearing and the appeals committee upheld the verdict.” More
This appeal was filed by appellant on 19 September 2014 and respondent was invited to file a response but did not do so. Since then nothing has happened on the matter making it eligible to be decided under section 89 (2) (a) 1 of the Labour Act. The issue between the parties was about factual arguments on the respondents underpayments and entitlements. Arbitrator ruled that the respondent had a good case. More
Respondent introduced a fourth shift at the workplace and this led to different interpretations of the relevant Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) governing Respondent’s subsidiary. The matter was brought before the Works Council which ruled against the employees. The employees are dissatisfied and have approached the Court for relief. More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award.
The respondents were employed by the appellant in various capacities and claimed that as at 7 May 2014, they were owed salary arrears running from November 2010 to December 2013. They then approached the National Employment Printing’s designated agent for conciliation. Failing this, the matter was referred to arbitration.
The terms of reference for arbitration were;
1. To determine the quantum of outstanding salaries due to the claimants; and;
2. Determine when the amounts should be paid.
In defence against the claim, the appellant contended that there was no basis for the... More
Appellant was employed by the respondent as a controller. It was alleged that the appellant had negligently performed his duties and charges of misconduct were brought against him. He was brought before a Disciplinary Committee which found him guilty and dismissed him from employment. Appellant lodged his appeal in terms of the Code of Conduct. On the date the matter was scheduled to be heard, appellant raised technical issues at the commencement of the proceedings and walked out of the proceedings. The Appeals Committee proceeded to determine the matter and upheld the decision of the Disciplinary Committee. Appellant is dissatisfied... More
