casualisationfixed term contractsarbitrationjurisdictionprescription
Tags
casualisation of labourfixed term contractsarbitration appeal
legislation
Statutes Cited
Labour Act
ai analysis
Case Summary
Key Issues
{"issue_text":"Whether the arbitrator erred by not determining the issue of his jurisdiction","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Appellant challenged arbitrator's jurisdiction"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the arbitrator erred by not ruling on the prescription issue","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Appellant raised prescription"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the respondent was casualised labour","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Nine years of fixed term contracts"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the respondent was underpaid","issue_type":"factual","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Respondent's salary evidence"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The appellant employed the respondent on renewable fixed term contracts for nine years. The respondent's services were terminated on 14 July 2014. He approached a labour officer and proceeded to arbitration where the arbitrator ruled in his favour, finding that the appellant had casualised labour. The appellant appealed against this arbitral award.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases