The Industrial Court held that Napokoli’s termination was unfair and unlawful because the employer gave a reason without proving it or hearing him, and awarded general damages.
The court found that while the Respondent had a legitimate basis to restructure following the NCHE report, it failed to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements under Section 80 of the Employment Act and Regulation 44 of the Employment Regulations. The Claimants were not given adequate notice or consulted about the restructuring and its direct impact on their employment, as required by law. Their contracts were renewed during the restructuring period, and their terminations occurred five months after the process had concluded, undermining the Respondent's claim that the terminations…
The court found that the Respondent failed to prove, to the required standard, that the Claimant committed the alleged offences of obtaining money by false pretences and constructing or aiding the construction of an illegal power line. The evidence relied upon by the Respondent was unsubstantiated, with key witnesses not called and documentary evidence lacking authentication. The disciplinary process was procedurally unfair: the Claimant was summoned while on sick leave, denied the opportunity to call or cross-examine witnesses, and the charges were altered at the hearing stage, violating pri…
The court found that the claimant's early retirement was based on medical grounds due to a degenerative back condition, and the respondent accepted her retirement without offering alternative light work or awaiting the independent medical report. The respondent's argument that the claimant was not entitled to severance pay because she retired before the independent report was rejected, as the respondent had the obligation to act on the initial medical findings or provide alternative work. The court held that the claimant was entitled to severance pay under both the Employment Act and the resp…
The court found that the claimant's early retirement was medically justified and not due to willful misconduct. The respondent's failure to provide alternative light work or timely independent medical evaluation did not preclude the claimant's entitlement to severance pay under both the Employment Act and the respondent's own policy. The collective bargaining agreement did not apply to the claimant as a manager, so the court adopted the judicially established formula of one month's salary per year of service. The respondent's deduction of 2% from pension contributions for administrative costs…
The court found that the claimant was entitled to severance pay upon early retirement on medical grounds, as her incapacity was not due to willful misconduct and the respondent failed to offer her alternative lighter work. The respondent's reliance on a delayed independent medical report did not preclude the claimant's entitlement, as the respondent accepted her retirement based on the initial medical report. The collective bargaining agreement did not apply to the claimant as a manager, so the court adopted a formula of one month's salary per year of service, awarding severance pay according…
The court found that the respondent failed to accord the claimant procedural fairness, as the invitation to the disciplinary hearing was not properly served, did not provide sufficient time to prepare a defence, lacked adequate particulars of the allegations, and did not explain the claimant's rights at the hearing. The respondent also failed to follow its own internal disciplinary procedures. Substantively, the court held that the allegations of professional misconduct and academic dishonesty were not proven to a reasonable standard, as the disciplinary hearing minutes did not provide suffic…
The court found that the Claimant was an employee of the Respondent and was dismissed for alleged insubordination and absence from a meeting. The Respondent failed to provide evidence of a disciplinary hearing or invitation to the Claimant to defend himself against the allegations. The Employment Act and relevant case law require that an employee facing dismissal for misconduct must be given notice of the allegations and an opportunity to be heard. The Respondent's failure to follow its own disciplinary procedures and the statutory requirements rendered the dismissal both procedurally and sub…
The court found that while the Respondent had the right to restructure and declare redundancies, it failed to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements under Section 80 of the Employment Act. Specifically, there was no admissible evidence that the Labour Commissioner was notified in writing within the statutory period, and the Claimants were not given proper written notice of impending redundancy. The purported redundancy notices were in fact termination letters, and the consultative process was neither transparent nor objective. The Respondent's reliance on virtual 'town hall' meetin…
The Industrial Court held that the bank’s termination was a disguised dismissal, finding the disciplinary process unfair and awarding damages, severance pay, service certificate, interest, and costs.
