Moneyline Financial Services (Pty) Ltd v Chakane NO and Others (JR245417) [2019] ZALCJHB 156 (19 June 2019)
Tuesday, 16 July 2019
SUMMARY The factual matrix from which this judgment arises concerns a dismissal of employees due to poor work performance. The Employer Moneyline Financial Services (Pty) Ltd dismissed the Third Respondent and 7 others (“the Employees”) who were employed in capacity as sales representatives. Following such dismissals, the matter proceeded to arbitration proceedings where it was
- Published in 2019, Labour Law, News
No Comments
Lesedi v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR667/15) [2018] ZALCJHB 57 (15 February 2018)
Tuesday, 25 September 2018
SUMMARY This matter concerns a review application brought about by Moeti John Lesedi (the “Applicant”) who is reviewing an arbitration order made by the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (the “CCMA”), who is the First Respondent in the matter and Commissioner Timothy Boyce (the “Second Respondent”). The Applicant’s review application concerns Dischem Pharmacies (the
- Published in News, 2018, Labour Law
Unitrans Supply Chain Solutions (Pty) Ltd v National Bargaining Council for the Road Freight and Logistics Industry (NBCRFLI) and Others
Wednesday, 22 August 2018
SUMMARY – Background to Review This is an opposed review application of an award in which the arbitrator found that the third respondent, Mr I Juries (‘Juries’), was dismissed by the applicant (‘Unitrans’) unfairly because he did not deliberately falsify payroll information which caused a shop steward, Mr G Coetzee (‘Coetzee’), to receive additional remuneration
- Published in News, 2018, Labour Law
Bell Equipment Sales SA Ltd v Tshepo Mashiigo (N.O.) and Others [2018] ZALCJHB 251 (31 July 2018)
Wednesday, 08 August 2018
SUMMARY This matter concerns the First Respondent’s award finding that the dismissal of the Fourth Respondent was substantively unfair, ordering his reinstatement. The Applicant sought an order setting aside the award, while the Fourth Respondent applied for the award to be made an order of court. The Fourth Respondent’s dismissal arose from his failure to
- Published in 2018, Labour Law, News
