PrescriptionContinuing unfair labour practiceUS dollar paymentsLabour officer ruling confirmation
Tags
PrescriptionContinuing unfair labour practiceCurrency of payment
legislation
Statutes Cited
Labour Act
Labour Act
Labour Act
ai analysis
Case Summary
Key Issues
{"issue_text":"Whether the claim has prescribed under section 94(1) of the Labour Act","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Claims arose 2009-2018, referred 2019"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the unfair labour practice was continuing under section 94(2)","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Monthly underpayments, accumulation of backpay and arrears"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The applicant sought confirmation of a labour officer's draft ruling ordering the 1st respondent to pay US$168,525 to the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent opposed on prescription grounds, arguing claims arose 2009-2018 but were only referred in 2019. The 2nd respondent argued the unfair labour practice was continuing.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases