{"issue_text":"Whether the arbitrator erred in finding appellant never acted in Senior Clerical Officer Grade 11","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Acting capacity, organogram evidence, grade distinctions"}
{"issue_text":"Whether legitimate expectation for substantive appointment was created","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Acting allowance, recommendation letters, ministerial directive"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the appeal raises valid points of law under section 98(10) of Labour Act","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Nature of appeal grounds"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The appellant, employed as a general labourer grade 15/16 since 1999, claimed entitlement to substantive appointment to grade 11 (Senior Clerical Officer) based on having acted in that capacity and receiving acting allowances. The arbitrator dismissed her claim, finding no evidence she acted in grade 11.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases