{"issue_text":"Whether an employee who performs extra duties without formal appointment as acting is entitled to acting allowance","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Appellant performed accounting duties without formal appointment"}
{"issue_text":"Whether performing extra duties for more than six months entitles employee to permanent appointment under company policy","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Appellant performed accounting duties from 2009-2015"}
{"issue_text":"Whether court should interfere with arbitrator's factual findings","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Arbitrator found appellant was never acting accountant"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The appellant, employed as a book-keeper, performed accounting duties when acting accountants left employment. He claimed entitlement to acting allowance and permanent appointment as accountant based on company policy. The matter went to arbitration where the arbitrator ruled against him, finding he was never appointed as acting accountant and the employer had elevated him to senior book-keeper instead.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases