{"issue_text":"Whether the matter had prescribed under the Prescription Act before the 2013 disciplinary proceedings","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Absence ended February 2009; second proceedings began December 2012"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the Certificate of Settlement prevented reliance on prescription","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Certificate dated 9 February 2012"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The respondent, a Patrolman employed by the appellant, was dismissed for absenteeism from October 2008 to February 2009. After initial dismissal and settlement via a Certificate of Settlement in 2012 allowing reinstatement and re-hearing, he was dismissed again in 2013. The arbitrator found the matter prescribed under section 94 of the Labour Act.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases