Labour lawEmployment disputesDisciplinary procedures
Keywords
Verbal instructionsProcurement proceduresHabitual unsatisfactory work performanceSupervisory failure
Tags
Disciplinary hearingAppeal against dismissalHabitual unsatisfactory work performance
legislation
Statutes Cited
Labour Act
ai analysis
Case Summary
Key Issues
{"issue_text":"Whether issuance of verbal instructions without written order for over one month constituted habitual/substantial unsatisfactory work performance","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Verbal instruction issued on 15 December 2015, written order only issued one month later"}
{"issue_text":"Whether delay in processing purchase orders for school construction constituted habitual/substantial unsatisfactory work performance","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Orders delayed for over three months, first appellant proceeded on study leave"}
{"issue_text":"Whether second appellant failed to supervise first appellant adequately","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Second appellant allowed first appellant to delay issuing written order and proceed on study leave without completing duties"}
{"issue_text":"Whether appeals committee procedure was flawed due to bias and failure to address points in limine","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Appellants raised procedural objections before appeals committee"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
Two employees were dismissed for habitual/substantial unsatisfactory work performance after issuing verbal instructions to suppliers contrary to procurement procedures and delaying processing of purchase orders for over three months.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases